Decree of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts on the Formulary and Biblical Readings for the Mass for the Care of Creation, 03.07.2025
DECREE
on the formulary and Biblical readings
for the Mass for the Care of Creation
“Let Your works praise You, that we may love You; and let us love You, that Your works may praise You (Augustine, Confessions, 13,33; PL 32)
The mystery of creation is the beginning of salvation history, which culminates in Christ and from the mystery of Christ it receives definitive light; in fact, by manifesting His goodness, “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1,1) God already from these origins had in mind the glory of the new creation in Christ.
Sacred Scripture exhorts humankind to contemplate the mystery of creation and to give endless thanks to the Holy Trinity for this sign of His benevolence, which, like a precious treasure, is to be loved, cherished and simultaneously advanced, as well as handed down from generation to generation.
At this time it is evident that the work of creation is seriously threatened because of the irresponsible use and abuse of the goods God has endowed to our care (cf. Laudato si’ n. 2).
This is why it is considered appropriate to add a Mass formulary “pro custodia creationis” to the Missae “pro variis necessitatibus vel ad diversa” of the Roman Missal.
In the Eucharist “The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, ‘creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself’ (Benedict XVI, Homily for the Mass of Corpus Domini, 15 June 2006). Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation” (Laudato si’ n. 236).
The Supreme Pontiff LEO XIV approved this formulary along with appropriate biblical readings, drawn up in Latin and attached to this Decree, and ordered that they be disseminated, and now the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments promulgates it and declares it to be the typical text.
Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
From the Dicastery for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 8 June 2025, Solemnity of Pentecost.
Arthur Card. Roche
Prefect
✠ Vittorio Francesco Viola, O.F.M.
Archbishop Secretary
New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.
Global opinion, global weather
The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.
The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.
The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.
Public support for climate policies
The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.
Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.
Exposure to extreme weather events
The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.
Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.
In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.
Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.
In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.
Seeing the link between weather and climate change
In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.
Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).
Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.
Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.
This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.
Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.
AI-powered assistive devices, like hearing aids, are changing how the people who use them experience public space.(Shutterstock)
New applications and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with wearable devices are changing the way users interact with their environments and each other. The impacts and reach of these new technologies have yet to be fully understood.
Connections between technologies and bodies is not a new thing for many disabled persons. Assistive technologies — tools and products designed to support people with disabilities — have played a part in mitigating built and institutional barriers experienced by disabled persons for decades.
While not strictly considered assistive, immersive and wearable technologies have the potential to change the relationship between disabled users and their experience of place.
For example, Ray-Ban’s Meta glasses use AI to describe what the cameras are capturing using the Be My Eyes app. Using OpenAI’s large language model, ChatGPT, this effectively turns a user’s smart phone into a vision assistant.
The availability and production of environmental data from these technologies may impact how we relate to each other, how we move through and understand space, and how we engage with the physical environment around us at any given moment.
Sam Seavey, founder of TheBlindLife.com, reviews the possibilities and limitations of Apple’s VisionPro. (The Blind Life)
We’re at a critical juncture where AI-enabled technologies used by individuals may profoundly impact our urban futures.
What happens, for example, when wearables make any “place” a digital work or play place? What does a largely private-sector, consumer-driven, AI-enabled digital intervention into a city’s spaces mean for planning, zoning and taxation? What are the environmental costs of the global AI project?
And crucially, who gets to participate in this digital reimagining?
AI and the city
While access can be challenging — wearables are often costly — ableist thinking regarding the use of technology to render invisible Blind and/or Deaf people and culture is also a problem. Some people might naively assume that all Blind and Deaf people are universally seeking a bio-technological “miracle.”
There are also other challenges: how a technology captures or describes its data may not match up to a user’s pre-existing sense of place. Moreover, access to tech can produce some unintended consequences, including the erosion of in-person community building among disabled people.
My hearing aids use AI and machine learning to sense and adjust my sound environment. They help me cope with the ways in which the places of my everyday life — such as my home or the lecture hall — are generally configured for people without hearing loss.
When I use my hearing aids, I find that the city has never sounded so wonderful, and yet sometimes irritatingly loud. The sound of birds is one thing; the grinding sound of a breaking subway is another entirely.
Cumulative exposure to noisy indoor and outdoor places of the city poses auditory health risks, such as noise-induced hearing loss or tinnitus, and can contribute to poor health more broadly. I have to be careful about ongoing noise exposure, and by adjusting the volume of my hearing aids, I can turn down the city when I want to.
Future bodies and urban futures
AI-powered technologies can exacerbate issues of access, privilege and freedom of movement. This happens both through who is able to purchase and use devices, as well as through data and their applications. Data may be biased in terms of race, gender, sexuality and disability.
Scientific research and media representations tend to highlight the benevolent possibilities of technologies for “repairing” bodies conceived as being functionally medically deficient.
Much less is said about disabled persons controlling the narrative, taking up key roles in the messy terrain of AI, machine learning and data governance, and in the planning and design of future cities.
Digital modelling
We are also witnessing growing interest in the digital twinning — creating highly accurate digital models — of everything from human hearts to entire cities.
Not everyone can, should or wishes to be technologically “assisted” or augmented. There are medical, identity and culture, affordability, legal, moral and ethical concerns.
Other issues raised by brain-computer interface research, for example, include concerns about legal capacity and ownership of the self, including ownership of device-generated data.
In a study on the impact of neural technologies, researchers shared the legal repercussions relating to two disabled people deprived of voting rights in Spain. The person who recovered the ability to communicate autonomously using their finger and a computer had their rights restored, while the other, who used a human intermediary, did not.
Where does the person end and the technology begin, and vice versa? Who gets to decide?
Future technologies
As the use of AI and assistive technologies increases in everyday urban life, we will need to address these questions sooner rather than later.
And if disabled persons are not adequately involved in these discussions and decisions, then cities will be less — rather than more — accessible.
Ron Buliung does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Mountains on the moon as seen by NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. (NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University)
In science-fiction stories, companies often mine the moon or asteroids. While this may seem far-fetched, this idea is edging closer to becoming reality.
Celestial bodies like the moon contain valuable resources, such as lunar regolith — also known as moon dust — and helium-3. These resources could serve a range of applications, including making rocket propellant and generating energy to sustaining long missions, bringing benefits in space and on Earth.
The first objective on this journey is being able to collect lunar regolith. One company taking up this challenge is ispace, a Japanese space exploration company ispace that signed a contract with NASA in 2020 for the collection and transfer of ownership of lunar regolith.
The company recently attempted to land its RESILIENCE lunar lander, but the mission was ultimately unsuccessful. Still, this endeavour marked a significant move toward the commercialization of space resources.
These circumstances give rise to a fundamental question: what are the legal rules governing the exploitation of space resources? The answer is both simple and complex, as there is a mix of international agreements and evolving regulations to consider.
Space activities have exponentially evolved since the treaty’s adoption. In the 60 years following the launch of Sputnik 1 — the first satellite placed in orbit — less than 500 space objects were launched annually. But since 2018, this number has risen into the thousands, with nearly 3,000 launched in 2024.
Because of this, the treaty is often judged as inadequate to address the current complexities of space activities, particularly resource exploitation.
A longstanding debate centres on whether Article II of the treaty, which prohibits the appropriation of outer space — including the moon and other celestial bodies — also prohibits space mining.
The prevailing position is that Article II solely bans the appropriation of territory, not the extraction of resources themselves.
We are now at a crucial moment in the development of space law. Arguing over whether extraction is legal serves no purpose. Instead, the focus must shift to ensuring resource extraction is carried out in accordance with principles that ensure the safe and responsible use of outer space.
International and national space laws
A significant development in the governance of space resources has been the adoption Artemis Accords, which — as of June 2025 — has 55 signatory nations. The accords reflect a growing international consensus concerning the exploitation of space resources.
Notably, Section 10 of the accords indicates that the exploitation of space resources does not constitute appropriation, and therefore doesn’t violate the Outer Space Treaty.
Considering the typically slow pace of multilateral negotiations, a handful of nations introduced national legislation. These laws govern the legality of space resource exploitation, allowing private companies to request licenses to conduct this type of activity.
Among these, Luxembourg’s legal framework is the most complete. It provides a series of requirements to provide authorization for the exploitation of space resources. In fact, ispace’s licence to collect lunar regolith was obtained under this regime.
This first high-resolution image taken on the first day of the Artemis I mission by a camera on the tip of one of Orion’s solar arrays. The spacecraft was 57,000 miles from Earth when the image was captured. (NASA)
The rest of the regulations usually tend to limit themselves to proclaiming the legality of this activity without entering into too much detail and deferring the specifics of implementation to future regulations.
While these initiatives served to put space resources at the forefront of international forums, they also risk regulatory fragmentation, as different countries adopt varying standards and approaches.
In May 2025, the chair of the working group, Steven Freeland, presented a draft of recommended principles based on input from member states.
These principles reaffirm the freedom of use and exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes, while introducing rules pertaining to the safety of the activities and their sustainability, as well as the protection of the environment, both of Earth and outer space.
The development of a legal framework for space resources is still in its early stages. The working group is expected to submit its final report by 2027, but the non-binding nature of the principles raises concerns about their enforcement and application.
As humanity moves closer to extracting and using space resources, the need for a cohesive and responsible governance system has never been greater.
Martina Elia Vitoloni does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The lack of reliable information about health facilities across sub-Saharan Africa became very clear during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amid a surge in emergency care needs, information was lacking about the location of facilities, bed capacity and oxygen availability, and even where to find medical specialists. This data could have enabled precise assessments of hospital surge capacity and geographic access to critical care. Peter Macharia and Emelda Okiro, whose research focuses on public health and equity of health service access in low resource settings, share the findings of their recent study, co-authored with colleagues.
What are open health facility databases?
A health facility is a service delivery point where healthcare services are provided. The facilities can range from small clinics and doctor’s offices to large teaching and referral hospitals.
A health facility database is a list of all health facilities in a country or geographic area, such as a district. A typical database should assign each health facility a unique code, name, size, type (from primary to tertiary), ownership (public or private), operational status (working or closed), location and subnational unit (county or district). It should also record services (emergency obstetric care, for example), capacity (number of beds, for example), infrastructure (electricity availability, for example), contact information (address and email), and when this information was last updated.
The ideal method of compiling this list is to conduct a census, as Kenya did in 2023. But this takes resources. Some countries have compiled lists from existing incomplete ones. Senegal did this and so did Kenya in 2003 and 2008.
This list should be open to stakeholders, including government agencies, development partners and researchers. Health facility lists must be shared through a governance framework that balances data sharing with protections for data subjects and creators. In some countries, such as Kenya and Malawi, these listings are accessible through web portals without additional permission. In others, such facility lists do not exist or require extra permission.
Why are they useful to have?
Facility listings can serve the needs of individuals and communities. They also serve sub-national, national and continental health objectives.
At the individual level, a facility list offers a choice of alternatives to health seekers. At the community level, the data can guide decisions like where to place community health workers, as seen in Mali and Sierra Leone.
Health lists are useful when distributing commodities such as bed nets and allocating resources based on the health needs of the areas they serve. They help in planning for vaccination campaigns by creating detailed immunisation microplans.
By taking account of the disease burden, social dynamics and environmental factors, health services can be tailored to specific needs.
Detailed maps of healthcare resources enable quicker emergency responses by pinpointing facilities equipped for specific crises. Disease surveillance systems depend on continuously collecting data from healthcare facilities.
At the continental level, lists are crucial for a coordinated health system response during pandemics and outbreaks. They can facilitate cross-border planning, pandemic preparedness and collaboration.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, these lists informed where to put additional resources such as makeshift hospitals or transport programmes for adults over 60 years of age.
The lists are used to identify vulnerable populations at risk of emerging pathogens and populations that can benefit from new health facilities.
Many problems arise if we don’t know where health facilities are or what they offer. Healthcare planning becomes inefficient. This can result in duplicate facility lists and the misallocation of resources, which leads to waste and inequities.
We can’t identify populations that lack services. Emergency responses weaken due to uncertainty about where best to move patients with specific conditions.
Resources are wasted when there are duplicate facility lists. For example, between 2010 and 2016, six government departments partnered with development organisations, resulting in ten lists of health facilities in Nigeria.
In Tanzania, over 10 different health facility lists existed in 2009. Maintained by donors and government agencies, the function-specific lists didn’t work together to share information easily and accurately. This prompted the need for a national master facility list.
What needs to happen to build one?
A comprehensive list of health facilities can be compiled through mapping exercises or from existing lists. The health ministry should take responsibility for setting up, developing and updating this list.
Partnerships are crucial for developing facility lists. Stakeholders include donors, implementing and humanitarian partners, technical advisors and research institutions. Many of these have their own project-based lists, which should integrate into a centralised facility list managed by the ministry. The health ministry must foster a transparent environment, encouraging citizens and stakeholders to contribute to enhancing health facility data.
Political and financial commitment from governments is essential. Creating and maintaining a proper list requires significant investment. Expertise and resources are necessary to keep it updated.
A commitment to open data is a necessary step. Open access to these lists makes them more complete, reliable and useful.
Peter Macharia is funded by Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- Belgium (FWO, number 1201925N) for his Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship.
Emelda Okiro receives funding for her research from the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (#224272).
A new flood barrier is being built to prevent climate-induced Flooding in Chittagong in Bangladesh. amdadphoto/Shutterstock.com
At a coastal port in Chittagong, Bangladesh, something remarkable is underway. With support from a US$850 million (£620 million) investment from the World Bank, engineers are building flood-resistant infrastructure that can survive rising seas and stronger storms. A new 3.7-mile-long barrier will protect people, homes, and trade in one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions.
Projects like this do more than save lives. They show why investing in climate
adaptation is one of the smartest financial opportunities of our time. There are plenty of global conferences where leaders discuss climate change and make big
promises. Yet, less than 5.5% ofglobal climate finance actually reaches the countries most at risk. That is not just a failure of fairness. It is a missed chance for real impact.
As the world gathers in Seville, Spain for the fourth international meeting on development financing, the focus must go beyond pledges and shift toward practical, on-the-ground investment in resilience.
At the previous UN climate finance meeting, also held in Seville, leaders focused
on fixing how public money flows through global institutions. But just as important is the need to invest in climate adaptation. This means helping people live with the changes already happening, including more floods, longer droughts, rising seas and intense heat.
While mitigation is about stopping climate change getting worse (by switching to clean energy or protecting forests that absorb carbon, for example), adaptation is about coping with the effects we can no longer avoid. It includes building stronger homes, growing more resilient crops, and improving hospitals and schools so they can keep working during extreme weather. Both approaches are necessary, but adaptation often gets less attention. And less money.
Private investors have already committed large sums to clean energy projects. But they have done much less to support communities on the frontlines of climate change. Many of these countries struggle with limited budgets, complex rules for accessing finance, and a lack of support to develop viable projects. So promising ideas often go unfunded.
That is beginning to change. New tools are helping investors take on less risk and back more projects. These include low-interest loans, partnerships between public and private institutions, and guarantees that reduce the risk of failure.
The Green Climate Fund is the largest source of dedicated climate finance for developing countries. By the end of 2023, it had approved US$13.5 billion in funding, rising to US$51.9 billion when co-financing is included. This money helps unlock adaptation efforts that were previously out of reach.
We can already see progress. In Kenya and Ethiopia, farmers are using drought-resistant seeds to grow more food in changing conditions. In the Caribbean, solar energy is powering schools and clinics in remote communities. And in Bangladesh, the new port infrastructure in Chittagong is protecting a vital economic hub while boosting local businesses.
Working with nature
In coastal areas, restoring mangrove forests can reduce the force of incoming storms, protect biodiversity and support fisheries. The Pollination Group, a climate investment firm, is helping turn “nature-based solutions” like these into projects that attract private finance.
In his previous role as the Prince of Wales, King Charles III launched the Natural Capital Investment Alliance, an initiative that aims to mobilise US$10 billion for projects that restore and protect nature while offering solid financial returns. The alliance also helps investors better understand these kinds of opportunities by creating clearer guidance and standards. This supports the Terra Carta, a charter created by King Charles III that offers a roadmap for businesses to align with the needs of both people and the planet by 2030.
Investors who step into these emerging spaces gain more than financial returns. They build long-term relationships with governments and local communities. They help shape future policy. And they create lasting foundations for growth in places that are ready to lead if given the chance.
Adaptation projects also bring real benefits to people. They improve access to clean water, protect food supplies, create jobs, strengthen education and support healthcare systems. For families already facing climate disruption, these changes are not just improvements. They are lifelines.
By creating stable and welcoming environments for responsible investment, governments can accelerate this shift. By simplifying how money is accessed, international institutions can make it easier for good ideas to become funded projects. Philanthropic groups and development agencies can help build local skills and prepare projects for funding. Private investors can bring capital, innovation and experience.
Investing in climate adaptation is no longer just a moral issue. It is a smart, scalable and necessary response to a changing world.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Ali Serim does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
US Food and Drug Administration, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Health Fraud Branch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an urgent warning about tianeptine – a substance marketed as a dietary supplement but known on the street as “gas station heroin”.
Linked to overdoses and deaths, it is being sold in petrol stations, smoke shops and online retailers, despite never being approved for medical use in the US.
But what exactly is tianeptine, and why is it causing alarm?
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Structurally, it resembles tricyclic antidepressants – an older class of antidepressant – but pharmacologically it behaves very differently. Unlike conventional antidepressants, which typically increase serotonin levels, tianeptine appears to act on the brain’s glutamate system, which is involved in learning and memory.
It is used as a prescription drug in some European, Asian and Latin American countries under brand names like Stablon or Coaxil. But researchers later discovered something unusual, tianeptine also activates the brain’s mu-opioid receptors, the same receptors targeted by morphine and heroin – hence it’s nickname “gas station heroin”.
As a prescription drug, tianeptine is sold under various brand names, including Stablon. Wikimedia Commons
At prescribed doses, the effect is subtle, but in large amounts, tianeptine can trigger euphoria, sedation and eventually dependence. People chasing a high might take doses far beyond anything recommended in medical settings.
Despite never being approved by the FDA, the drug is sold in the US as a “wellness” product or nootropic – a substance supposedly used to enhance mood or mental clarity. It’s packaged as capsules, powders or liquids, often misleadingly labelled as dietary supplements.
This loophole has enabled companies to circumvent regulation. Products like Neptune’s Fix have been promoted as safe and legal alternatives to traditional medications, despite lacking any clinical oversight and often containing unlisted or dangerous ingredients.
Some samples have even been found to contain synthetic cannabinoids and other drugs. According to US poison control data, calls related to tianeptine exposure rose by over 500% between 2018 and 2023. In 2024 alone, the drug was involved in more than 300 poisoning cases. The FDA’s latest advisory included product recalls and import warnings.
Users have taken to the social media site Reddit, including a dedicated channel, and other forums to describe their experiences, both the highs and the grim withdrawals. Some report taking hundreds of pills a day. Others struggle to quit, describing cravings and relapses that mirror those seen with classic opioid addiction.
Since tianeptine doesn’t show up in standard toxicology screenings, health professionals may not recognise it. According to doctors in North America, it could be present in hospital patients without being detected, particularly in cases involving seizures or unusual heart symptoms.
It can be bought online from overseas vendors, and a quick search reveals dozens of sellers offering “research-grade” powder and capsules.
There is little evidence that tianeptine is circulating widely in the UK; to date, just one confirmed sample has been publicly recorded in a national drug testing database. It’s not mentioned in recent Home Office or Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs briefings, and it does not appear in official crime or hospital statistics.
But that may simply reflect the fact that no one is looking for it. Without testing protocols in place, it could be present, just unrecorded.
Because of its chemical structure and unusual effects, if tianeptine did show up in a UK emergency department, it could easily be mistaken for a tricyclic antidepressant overdose, or even dismissed as recreational drug use. This makes it harder to diagnose and treat appropriately.
It’s possible, particularly among people seeking alternatives to harder-to-access opioids, or those looking for a legal high. With its low visibility, online availability and potential for addiction, tianeptine ticks many of the same boxes that once made drugs like mephedrone or spice popular before they were banned.
The UK has seen waves of novel psychoactive substances emerge through similar routes, first appearing online or in head shops, then spreading quietly until authorities responded. If tianeptine follows the same path, by the time it appears on the radar, harm may already be underway.
Michelle Sahai does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
We all need to learn how to place trust in others. It’s easy to be misled. Someone who doesn’t deserve trust can appear a lot like someone who does – and part of growing up in a society is developing the ability to tell the difference.
An important part of this is learning about the signals people give about themselves. These might be a smile, a style of dressing or a way of speaking. In particular, we use accents to make decisions about others – especially in the UK.
But what if people adapt or change their accents to fit into a certain social group or geographical area? Our past research has shown that native speakers are pretty good at spotting such speech. We’ve now published a follow-up study that supports and further strengthens our original results.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
We associate accents with places, classes and groups. Research shows that even infants use accents to determine whether they think someone is considered trustworthy. This can be a problem – studies have demonstrated that accents can affect someone’s odds of getting a job – and potentially the likelihood of being found guilty of a crime.
As with most topics in the social sciences, evolutionary theory has a lot to say about this process. Scientists are interested in understanding how people send and receive signals like accents, how those signals affect relationships between people and how, in turn, those relationships affect us.
But because accents can affect how we treat each other, we’d expect some people to try to change them for personal gain. A social chameleon who can pretend to be a member of any social class or group is likely to win trust within each – assuming they are not caught.
If that’s true, though, then we’d expect people to also be good at detecting when someone is “faking” it – what we call mimicry – setting up a kind of arms race between those who want to deceive us into trusting them and those who try to catch deceivers out.
Over the last few years, we’ve looked into how well people detect accent mimicry. Last year we found that generally speaking, people in the UK and Ireland are strong at this, detecting mimicked accents in the UK and Ireland better than we’d expect by chance alone.
What was more interesting, though, was that native listeners from the specific places of the imitated accent – Belfast, Glasgow and Dublin – were a lot better at this task than were non-natives or native listeners from further away in the UK, like Essex.
Beyond the UK
Our new findings went further, though. Of the roughly 2,000 people that participated, more than 1,500 were this time based in English-speaking countries outside the UK, including the US, Canada and Australia. And on average, this group did a lot worse at detecting mimicked accents from seven different regions in the UK and Ireland than did people from the UK.
In fact, people from places other than the UK barely did better than we’d expect by chance, while people who were native listeners were right between about two-thirds and three-quarters of the time.
As we argued in our original article, we believe it’s local cultural tensions — tribalism, classism or even warfare — that explain the differences. For example, as someone commented to me some time ago, people living in Belfast in the 1970s and 80s – a time of huge political tension – needed to be attuned to the accents of those around them. Hearing something off, like an out-group member’s accent, could signal an imminent threat.
This wouldn’t have put the same pressures on people living in a more peaceful regions. In fact, we found that people living in large, multicultural and largely peaceful areas, such as London, didn’t need to pay much attention to the accents of those around them and were worse at detecting mimicked accents.
The further you move out from the native accent, too, the less likely a listener is to place emphasis on or notice anything wrong with a local accent. Someone living in the US is likely to pay even less attention to an imitation Belfast accent than is someone living in London, and accordingly will be worse at detecting mimicry. Likewise, someone growing up in Australia would be better at spotting a mimicked Australian accent than a Brit.
So while accents, and our ability to detect differences in accents, probably evolved to help us place trust more effectively at a broad level, it’s the cultural environment that shapes that process at the local level.
Together, this has the unfortunate effect that we sometimes place a lot more emphasis on accents than we should. How someone speaks should be a lot less important than what is said.
Still, accents drive how people treat each other at every level of society, just as other signals, be they tattoos, smiles or clothes, that tell us something about another person’s background or heritage.
Learning how these processes work and why they evolved is critical for overcoming them – and helping us to override the biases that so often prevent us from placing trust in people who deserve it.
Jonathan R. Goodman receives funding from the Wellcome Trust (grant no. 220540/Z/20/A).
South Africans want to shop more sustainably, according to research published in the journal Sustainable Development. But most can’t tell which products are environmentally friendly.
Some food manufacturers have introduced eco labels – a certification symbol placed on product packaging. This indicates the product meets specific environmental standards set by a third party organisation.
These labels are meant to signal to consumers that a product has been produced in a way that limits harm to the environment. But our recent study with 108 South African consumers showed low recognition of eco labels, widespread confusion, and a need for clearer guidance.
The results show that most South African shoppers are unfamiliar with these labels or unable to differentiate between real and fictional ones.
In the European Union eco labels like the EU Energy Label are easily understood and highly visible. They are also usually supported by government awareness campaigns. Other examples of labelling systems that work well include those of Germany and Japan.
These countries show that long term institutional support, mandatory labelling in key sectors, and consistent public messaging can greatly improve eco label recognition.
We concluded from our research that South Africa lacks that national visibility and public education, leaving even motivated consumers unsure of what labels to trust. Based on our findings we recommend steps businesses, government and nonprofits can take to ensure that eco labels are clear, visible and understood.
Eco labelling at its best
The EU Energy Label is used on appliances such as fridges, washing machines and light bulbs to indicate their energy efficiency on a scale from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient).
In countries like Germany and Japan, eco labels are government backed as well as being integrated into school curricula, public service announcements and shopping platforms.
Germany’s Blue Angel label, which states “protects the environment”, has been in use since the 1970s. It appears on over 12,000 products and services, including paper goods, cleaning products, paints and electronics, that meet strict environmental criteria. It is supported by ongoing public education campaigns.
In Japan the the Eco Mark appears on products with minimal environmental impact. It appears on items like stationery, detergents, packaging and appliances. Many retailers display explanations next to these products to help consumers understand the label.
South Africans struggle to identify eco labels
We conducted a structured online survey of 108 South African consumers. Participants were asked about their environmental awareness and their ability to recognise both real and fictional eco labels across ten images. According to the global directory of eco labels and environmental certification schemes, there are around 50 eco labels in South Africa.
The EU Energy Label was the most recognised (87%).
The Afrisco Certified Organic label, which is a legitimate South African label, was the least recognised, identified by just 22% of respondents.
Fictional labels were mistakenly identified as real by many participants, revealing widespread confusion.
Only 3 out of 10 labels were recognised by at least half the participants, suggesting a general lack of eco label awareness. These include the Energy Star Eco label; the EU Energy label and the Forest Stewardship council label.
Age and employment status were significantly related to environmental awareness. Older and employed individuals showed higher levels of awareness.
These findings suggest that consumers are not opposed to eco labels, they simply lack the knowledge and confidence to use them effectively.
Eco labels have the potential to build brand trust, drive green purchasing behaviour, and support national sustainability goals. But they only work if consumers recognise and trust them.
In South Africa, inconsistent use, small label size, and a lack of consumer education are holding eco labels back from achieving their purpose.
What businesses can do
Based on our findings, we recommend the following:
Use recognised and credible labels: Third-party certified labels are more trustworthy and reliable.
Improve label visibility: The most recognised label in our study was the EU Energy Label and was also the most prominent. Small, cluttered logos go unnoticed.
Educate your market: Explain what eco labels mean through packaging, marketing, and digital platforms.
Partner with government and NGOs: Awareness campaigns at national and community levels can help standardise eco label understanding.
Tailor communication efforts: Awareness efforts should consider age and employment demographics, as these affect levels of environmental engagement.
The way forward
South Africans are willing to support environmentally responsible products, but they need help identifying them.
Businesses, government and nonprofits all have a role to play in making eco labels clearer, more visible, and more trustworthy.
Eco labels must become more than symbols. They should be tools for transparency and trust, and a gateway to more sustainable shopping.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The global ecosystem of climate finance is complex, constantly changing and sometimes hard to understand. But understanding it is critical to demanding a green transition that’s just and fair. That’s why The Conversation has collaborated with climate finance experts to create this user-friendly guide, in partnership with Vogue Business. With definitions and short videos, we’ll add to this glossary as new terms emerge.
Blue bonds
Blue bonds are debt instruments designed to finance ocean-related conservation, like protecting coral reefs or sustainable fishing. They’re modelled after green bonds but focus specifically on the health of marine ecosystems – this is a key pillar of climate stability.
By investing in blue bonds, governments and private investors can fund marine projects that deliver both environmental benefits and long-term financial returns. Seychelles issued the first blue bond in 2018. Now, more are emerging as ocean conservation becomes a greater priority for global sustainability efforts.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon border adjustment mechanism
Did you know that imported steel could soon face a carbon tax at the EU border? That’s because the carbon border adjustment mechanism is about to shake up the way we trade, produce and price carbon.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a proposed EU policy to put a carbon price on imports like iron, cement, fertiliser, aluminium and electricity. If a product is made in a country with weaker climate policies, the importer must pay the difference between that country’s carbon price and the EU’s. The goal is to avoid “carbon leakage” – when companies relocate to avoid emissions rules and to ensure fair competition on climate action.
But this mechanism is more than just a tariff tool. It’s a bold attempt to reshape global trade. Countries exporting to the EU may be pushed to adopt greener manufacturing or face higher tariffs.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is controversial: some call it climate protectionism, others argue it could incentivise low-carbon innovation worldwide and be vital for achieving climate justice. Many developing nations worry it could penalise them unfairly unless there’s climate finance to support greener transitions.
Carbon border adjustment mechanism is still evolving, but it’s already forcing companies, investors and governments to rethink emissions accounting, supply chains and competitiveness. It’s a carbon price with global consequences.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon budget
The Paris agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030. The carbon budget is the maximum amount of CO₂ emissions allowed, if we want a 67% chance of staying within this limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets amount to 400 billion tonnes of CO₂ from 2020 onwards.
Think of the carbon budget as a climate allowance. Once it has been spent, the risk of extreme weather or sea level rise increases sharply. If emissions continue unchecked, the budget will be exhausted within years, risking severe climate consequences. The IPCC sets the global carbon budget based on climate science, and governments use this framework to set national emission targets, climate policies and pathways to net zero emissions.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Carbon credits
Carbon credits are like a permit that allow companies to release a certain amount of carbon into the air. One credit usually equals one tonne of CO₂. These credits are issued by the local government or another authorised body and can be bought and sold. Think of it like a budget allowance for pollution. It encourages cuts in carbon emissions each year to stay within those global climate targets.
The aim is to put a price on carbon to encourage cuts in emissions. If a company reduces its emissions and has leftover credits, it can sell them to another company that is going over its limit. But there are issues. Some argue that carbon credit schemes allow polluters to pay their way out of real change, and not all credits are from trustworthy projects. Although carbon credits can play a role in addressing the climate crisis, they are not a solution on their own.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon credits explained.
Carbon offsetting
Carbon offsetting is a way for people or organisations to make up for the carbon emissions they are responsible for. For example, if you contribute to emissions by flying, driving or making goods, you can help balance that out by supporting projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This might include planting trees (which absorb carbon dioxide) or building wind farms to produce renewable energy.
The idea is that your support helps cancel out the damage you are doing. For example, if your flight creates one tonne of carbon dioxide, you pay to support a project that removes the same amount.
While this sounds like a win-win, carbon offsetting is not perfect. Some argue that it lets people feel better without really changing their behaviour, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as greenwashing.
Not all projects are effective or well managed. For instance, some tree planting initiatives might have taken place anyway, even without the offset funding, deeming your contribution inconsequential. Others might plant the non-native trees in areas where they are unlikely to reach their potential in terms of absorbing carbon emissions.
So, offsetting can help, but it is no magic fix. It works best alongside real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage low-carbon lifestyles or supply chains.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon offsetting explained.
Carbon tax
A carbon tax is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a direct price on CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.
A carbon tax is grounded in the concept of the social cost of carbon. This is an estimate of the economic damage caused by emitting one tonne of CO₂, including climate-related health, infrastructure and ecosystem impacts.
A carbon tax is typically levied per tonne of CO₂ emitted. The tax can be applied either upstream (on fossil fuel producers) or downstream (on consumers or power generators). This makes carbon-intensive activities more expensive, it incentivises nations, businesses and people to reduce their emissions, while untaxed renewable energy becomes more competitively priced and appealing.
Carbon tax was first introduced by Finland in 1990. Since then, more than 39 jurisdictions have implemented similar schemes. According to the World Bank, carbon pricing mechanisms (that’s both carbon taxes and emissions trading systems) now cover about 24% of global emissions. The remaining 76% are not priced, mainly due to limited coverage in both sectors and geographical areas, plus persistent fossil fuel subsidies. Expanding coverage would require extending carbon pricing to sectors like agriculture and transport, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and strengthening international governance.
What is carbon tax?
Sweden has one of the world’s highest carbon tax rates and has cut emissions by 33% since 1990 while maintaining economic growth. The policy worked because Sweden started early, applied the tax across many industries and maintained clear, consistent communication that kept the public on board.
Canada introduced a national carbon tax in 2019. In Canada, most of the revenue from carbon taxes is returned directly to households through annual rebates, making the scheme revenue-neutral for most families. However, despite its economic logic, inflation and rising fuel prices led to public discontent – especially as many citizens were unaware they were receiving rebates.
Carbon taxes face challenges including political resistance, fairness concerns and low public awareness. Their success depends on clear communication and visible reinvestment of revenues into climate or social goals. A 2025 study that surveyed 40,000 people in 20 countries found that support for carbon taxes increases significantly when revenues are used for environmental infrastructure, rather than returned through tax rebates.
By Meilan Yan, associate professor and senior lecturer in financial economics, Loughborough University
Climate resilience
Floods, wildfires, heatwaves and rising seas are pushing our cities, towns and neighbourhoods to their limits. But there’s a powerful idea that’s helping cities fight back: climate resilience.
Resilience refers to the ability of a system, such as a city, a community or even an ecosystem – to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
Sometimes people say resilience is about bouncing back. But it’s not just about surviving the next storm. It’s about adapting, evolving and thriving in a changing world.
Resilience means building smarter and better. It means designing homes that stay cool during heatwaves. Roads that don’t wash away in floods. Power grids that don’t fail when the weather turns extreme.
It’s also about people. A truly resilient city protects its most vulnerable. It ensures that everyone – regardless of income, age or background – can weather the storm.
And resilience isn’t just reactive. It’s about using science, local knowledge and innovation to reduce a risk before disaster strikes. From restoring wetlands to cool cities and absorb floods, to creating early warning systems for heatwaves, climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our cities.
By Paul O’Hare, senior lecturer in geography and development, Manchester Metropolitan University
The meaning of climate resilience.
Climate risk disclosure
Climate risk disclosure refers to how companies report the risks they face from climate change, such as flood damage, supply chain disruptions or regulatory costs. It includes both physical risks (like storms) and transition risks (like changing laws or consumer preferences).
Mandatory disclosures, such as those proposed by the UK and EU, aim to make climate-related risks transparent to investors. Done well, these reports can shape capital flows toward more sustainable business models. Done poorly, they become greenwashing tools.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Emissions trading scheme
An emissions trading scheme is the primary market-based approach for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in many countries, including Australia, Canada, China and Mexico.
Part of a government’s job is to decide how much of the economy’s carbon emissions it wants to avoid in order to fight climate change. It must put a cap on carbon emissions that economic production is not allowed to surpass. Preferably, the polluters (that’s the manufacturers, fossil fuel companies) should be the ones paying for the cost of climate mitigation.
Regulators could simply tell all the firms how much they are allowed to emit over the next ten years or so. But giving every firm the same allowance across the board is not cost efficient, because avoiding carbon emissions is much harder for some firms (such as steel producers) than others (such as tax consultants). Since governments cannot know each firm’s specific cost profile either, it can’t customise the allowances. Also, monitoring whether polluters actually abide by their assigned limits is extremely costly.
An emissions trading scheme cleverly solves this dilemma using the cap-and-trade mechanism. Instead of assigning each polluter a fixed quota and risking inefficiencies, the government issues a large number of tradable permits – each worth, say, a tonne of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) – that sum up to the cap. Firms that can cut greenhouse gas emissions relatively cheaply can then trade their surplus permits to those who find it harder – at a price that makes both better off.
By Mathias Weidinger, environmental economist, University of Oxford
Emissions trading schemes, explained by climate finance expert Mathias Weidinger.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing
ESG investing stands for environmental, social and governance investing. In simple terms, these are a set of standards that investors use to screen a company’s potential investments.
ESG means choosing to invest in companies that are not only profitable but also responsible. Investors use ESG metrics to assess risks (such as climate liability, labour practices) and align portfolios with sustainability goals by looking at how a company affects our planet and treats its people and communities. While there isn’t one single global body governing ESG, various organisations, ratings agencies and governments all contribute to setting and evolving these metrics.
For example, investing in a company committed to renewable energy and fair labour practices might be considered “ESG aligned”. Supporters believe ESG helps identify risks and create long-term value. Critics argue it can be vague or used for greenwashing, where companies appear sustainable without real action. ESG works best when paired with transparency and clear data. A barrier is that standards vary, and it’s not always clear what counts as ESG.
Why do financial companies and institutions care? Issues like climate change and nature loss pose significant risks, affecting company values and the global economy.
However, gathering reliable ESG information can be difficult. Companies often self-report, and the data isn’t always standardised or up to date. Researchers – including my team at the University of Oxford – are using geospatial data, like satellite imagery and artificial intelligence, to develop global databases for high-impact industries, across all major sectors and geographies, and independently assess environmental and social risks and impacts.
For instance, we can analyse satellite images of a facility over time to monitor its emissions effect on nature and biodiversity, or assess deforestation linked to a company’s supply chain. This allows us to map supply chains, identify high-impact assets, and detect hidden risks and opportunities in key industries, providing an objective, real-time look at their environmental footprint.
The goal is for this to improve ESG ratings and provide clearer, more consistent insights for investors. This approach could help us overcome current data limitations to build a more sustainable financial future.
By Amani Maalouf, senior researcher in spatial finance, University of Oxford
Environmental, social and governance investing explained.
Financed emissions
Financed emissions are the greenhouse gas emissions linked to a bank’s or investor’s lending and investment portfolio, rather than their own operations. For example, a bank that funds a coal mine or invests in fossil fuels is indirectly responsible for the carbon those activities produce.
Measuring financed emissions helps reveal the real climate impact of financial institutions not just their office energy use. It’s a cornerstone of climate accountability in finance and is becoming essential under net zero pledges.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Green bonds
Green bonds are loans issued to fund environmentally beneficial projects, such as energy-efficient buildings or clean transportation. Investors choose them to support climate solutions while earning returns.
Green bonds are a major tool to finance the shift to a low-carbon economy by directing finance toward climate solutions. As climate costs rise, green bonds could help close the funding gap while ensuring transparency and accountability.
Green bonds are required to ensure funds are spent as promised. For instance, imagine a city wants to upgrade its public transportation by adding electric buses to reduce pollution. Instead of raising taxes or slashing other budgets, the city can issue green bonds to raise the necessary capital. Investors buy the bonds, the city gets the funding, and the environment benefits from cleaner air and fewer emissions.
The growing participation of government issuers has improved the transparency and reliability of these investments. The green bond market has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the green bond market reached US$2.9 trillion (£2.1 trillion) in 2024 – nearly six times larger than in 2018. At the same time, annual issuance (the total value of green bonds issued in a year) hit US$700 billion, highlighting the increasing role of green finance in tackling climate change.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Just transition
Just transition is the process of moving to a low-carbon society that is environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. In a broad sense, a just transition means focusing on creating a more fair and equal society.
Just transition has existed as a concept since the 1970s. It was originally applied to the green energy transition, protecting workers in the fossil fuel industry as we move towards more sustainable alternatives.
These days, it has so many overlapping issues of justice hidden within it, so the concept is hard to define. Even at the level of UN climate negotiations, global leaders struggle to agree on what a just transition means.
The big battle is between developed countries, who want a very restrictive definition around jobs and skills, and developing countries, who are looking for a much more holistic approach that considers wider system change and includes considerations around human rights, Indigenous people and creating an overall fairer global society.
A just transition is essentially about imagining a future where we have moved beyond fossil fuels and society works better for everyone – but that can look very different in a European city compared to a rural setting in south-east Asia.
For example, in a British city it might mean fewer cars and better public transport. In a rural setting, it might mean new ways of growing crops that are more sustainable, and building homes that are heatwave resistant.
By Alix Dietzel, climate justice and climate policy expert, University of Bristol
The meaning of just transition.
Loss and damage
A global loss and damage fund was agreed by nations at the UN climate summit (Cop27) in 2022. This means that the rich countries of the world put money into a fund that the least developed countries can then call upon when they have a climate emergency.
At the moment, the loss and damage fund is made up of relatively small pots of money. Much more will be needed to provide relief to those who need it most now and in the future.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains loss and damage.
Mitigation v adaptation
Mitigation means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Adaptation means adjusting to its effects, like building sea walls or growing heat-resistant crops. Both are essential: mitigation tackles the cause, while adaptation tackles the symptoms.
Globally, most funding goes to mitigation, but vulnerable communities often need adaptation support most. Balancing the two is a major challenge in climate policy, especially for developing countries facing immediate climate threats.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Nationally determined contributions
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris agreement, the global effort to collectively combat climate change. NDCs are individual climate action plans created by each country. These targets and strategies outline how a country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
Each nation sets its own goals based on its own circumstances and capabilities – there’s no standard NDC. These plans should be updated every five years and countries are encouraged to gradually increase their climate ambitions over time.
The aim is for NDCs to drive real action by guiding policies, attracting investment and inspiring innovation in clean technologies. But current NDCs fall short of the Paris agreement goals and many countries struggle to turn their plans into a reality. NDCs also vary widely in scope and detail so it’s hard to compare efforts across the board. Stronger international collaboration and greater accountability will be crucial.
By Doug Specht, reader in cultural geography and communication, University of Westminster
Fashion depends on water, soil and biodiversity – all natural capital. And forward-thinking designers are now asking: how do we create rather than deplete, how do we restore rather than extract?
Natural capital is the value assigned to the stock of forests, soils, oceans and even minerals such as lithium. It sustains every part of our economy. It’s the bees that pollinate our crops. It’s the wetlands that filter our water and it’s the trees that store carbon and cool our cities.
If we fail to value nature properly, we risk losing it. But if we succeed, we unlock a future that is not only sustainable but also truly regenerative.
My team at the University of Oxford is developing tools to integrate nature into national balance sheets, advising governments on biodiversity, and we’re helping industries from fashion to finance embed nature into their decision making.
Natural capital, explained by a climate finance expert.
By Mette Morsing, professor of business sustainability and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford
Net zero
Reaching net zero means reducing the amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere to zero. This concept was popularised by the Paris agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the UN climate summit (Cop21) in 2015 to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are some emissions, from farming and aviation for example, that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach absolute zero. Hence, the “net”. This allows people, businesses and countries to find ways to suck greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere, effectively cancelling out emissions while trying to reduce them. This can include reforestation, rewilding, direct air capture and carbon capture and storage. The goal is to reach net zero: the point at which no extra greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains net zero.
For more expert explainer videos, visit The Conversation’s quick climate dictionary playlist here on YouTube.
Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Amani Maalouf receives funding from IKEA Foundation and UK Research and Innovation (NE/V017756/1).
Narmin Nahidi is affiliated with several academic associations, including the Financial Management Association (FMA), British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA), American Finance Association (AFA), and the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CMBE). These affiliations do not influence the content of this article.
Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.
Alix Dietzel, Dongna Zhang, Doug Specht, Mathias Weidinger, Meilan Yan, and Sankar Sivarajah do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Liverpool’s Portuguese forward Diogo Jota, 28, died in a car crash near Zamora in northwestern Spain with his brother, the Portuguese Football Federation said on Thursday.
The regional fire department of Castile and Leon, where Zamora is located, said on its website a car crashed early on Thursday, shortly after midnight, and burst into flames, with two men, aged 28 and 26, found dead.
“We have lost two champions. Their deaths represent irreparable losses for Portuguese football, and we will do everything we can to honour their legacy every day,” the Portuguese Football Federation said in a statement.
Spanish police told Reuters they could not yet officially confirm the names of the deceased, but everything pointed to it being Jota and his brother. The Lamborghini they were travelling veered off the road, the spokesperson said.
The bodies have been taken to a forensics unit in nearby Zamora where autopsies will be performed, they said.
Jota, who got married on June 28, helped Liverpool win the Premier League last season and also won the FA Cup and League Cup with the Merseyside outfit.
Jota arrived at Anfield from Wolverhampton Wanderers in 2020 and scored 65 goals in 182 appearances for the club in all competitions.
He also made 49 appearances for Portugal, twice winning the UEFA Nations League.
A U.N. expert on Thursday called on states to impose an arms embargo and cut off trade and financial ties with Israel, which she alleged is waging a “genocidal campaign” in Gaza.
In a speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese said: “The situation in the occupied Palestinian territory is apocalyptic.”
“Israel is responsible for one of the cruellest genocides in modern history,” she added, in a speech that was met with a burst of applause from the Geneva council.
Israel’s diplomatic mission in Geneva did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Albanese’s speech.
Israel has rejected accusations of genocide in Gaza, citing its right to self-defence following the deadly October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. Its delegate was not present in the room in line with a new policy to disengage with the council which Israel says has an antisemitic bias.
Albanese, one of dozens of independent U.N.-mandated experts to document abuses around the world, was presenting her latest report which named over 60 companies she said were involved in supporting Israeli settlements and military actions in Gaza.
“What I expose is not a list, it is a system, and that is to be addressed,” she told the council.
“We must reverse the tide,” she added, calling for states to impose a full arms embargo, suspend all trade agreements and ensure companies face legal consequences for their involvement in violations of international law.
Israel’s diplomatic mission in Geneva earlier this week said Albanese’s latest report was “legally groundless, defamatory and a flagrant abuse of her office”.
A U.N. expert on Thursday called on states to impose an arms embargo and cut off trade and financial ties with Israel, which she alleged is waging a “genocidal campaign” in Gaza.
In a speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese said: “The situation in the occupied Palestinian territory is apocalyptic.”
“Israel is responsible for one of the cruellest genocides in modern history,” she added, in a speech that was met with a burst of applause from the Geneva council.
Israel’s diplomatic mission in Geneva did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Albanese’s speech.
Israel has rejected accusations of genocide in Gaza, citing its right to self-defence following the deadly October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. Its delegate was not present in the room in line with a new policy to disengage with the council which Israel says has an antisemitic bias.
Albanese, one of dozens of independent U.N.-mandated experts to document abuses around the world, was presenting her latest report which named over 60 companies she said were involved in supporting Israeli settlements and military actions in Gaza.
“What I expose is not a list, it is a system, and that is to be addressed,” she told the council.
“We must reverse the tide,” she added, calling for states to impose a full arms embargo, suspend all trade agreements and ensure companies face legal consequences for their involvement in violations of international law.
Israel’s diplomatic mission in Geneva earlier this week said Albanese’s latest report was “legally groundless, defamatory and a flagrant abuse of her office”.
Lord Mayor of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough, Alderman Stephen Moutray, and Armagh Chamber Chair, Art O’Hagan, celebrating the town’s shortlisting in the Small Business Support category.
Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council is proud to announce that Banbridge town has been shortlisted in the High Street Transformation category, and Armagh City has been recognised in the Small Business Support category in the third annual Let’s Celebrate Towns Awards, hosted by Visa in partnership with the British Retail Consortium (BRC).
The awards celebrate towns across the UK that are driving innovation and fostering thriving local economies. Banbridge’s nomination reflects its commitment to revitalising the high street through forward-thinking initiatives that support local businesses and enhance the town centre experience.
Meanwhile, Armagh City’s recognition in the Small Business Support category highlights strategic efforts to empower entrepreneurs and strengthen the borough’s economic resilience.
Lord Mayor of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Alderman Stephen Moutray commented:
“We are absolutely delighted to see Armagh City and Banbridge town centre recognised in this year’s Let’s Celebrate Towns awards, once again. These nominations are a testament to the hard work, creativity and collaboration happening across our borough. We remain committed to supporting our towns and communities to thrive, and this recognition reinforces the impact of our collective efforts.”
A panel of expert judges will now select six category winners, each of whom will receive £20,000 to fund a local community initiative. Winners will be announced at a prestigious awards ceremony at the House of Lords in July.
Ice loss in Antarctica and its impact on the planet – sea level rise, changes to ocean currents and disturbance of wildlife and food webs – has been in the news a lot lately. All of these threats were likely on the minds of the delegates to the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which finishes up today in Milan, Italy.
This meeting is where decisions are made about the continent’s future. These decisions rely on evidence from scientific research. Moreover, only countries that produce significant Antarctic research – as well as being parties to the treaty – get to have a final say in these decisions.
Our new report – published as a preprint through the University of the Arctic – shows the rate of research on the Antarctic and Southern Ocean is falling at exactly the time when it should be increasing. Moreover, research leadership is changing, with China taking the lead for the first time.
This points to a dangerous disinvestment in Antarctic research just when it is needed, alongside a changing of the guard in national influence. Antarctica and the research done there are key to everyone’s future, so it’s vital to understand what this change might lead to.
Why is Antarctic research so important?
With the Antarctic region rapidly warming, its ice shelves destabilising and sea ice shrinking, understanding the South Polar environment is more crucial than ever.
Research to understand these impacts is vital. First, knowing the impact of our actions – particularly carbon emissions – gives us an increased drive to make changes and lobby governments to do so.
Second, even when changes are already locked in, to prepare ourselves we need to know what these changes will look like.
And third, we need to understand the threats to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean environment to govern it properly. This is where the treaty comes in.
Fifty-eight countries are parties to the treaty, but only 29 of them – called consultative parties – can make binding decisions about the region. They comprise the 12 original signatories from 1959, along with 17 more recent signatory nations that produce substantial scientific research relating to Antarctica.
This makes research a key part of a nation’s influence over what happens in Antarctica.
For most of its history, the Antarctic Treaty System has functioned remarkably well. It maintained peace in the region during the Cold War, facilitated scientific cooperation, and put arguments about territorial claims on indefinite hold. It indefinitely forbade mining, and managed fisheries.
Because decisions are made by consensus, any country can effectively block progress. Russia and China – both long-term actors in the system – have been at the centre of the impasse.
Tracking the amount of Antarctic research being done tells us whether nations as a whole are investing enough in understanding the region and its global impact.
It also tells us which nations are investing the most and are therefore likely to have substantial influence.
Our new report examined the number of papers published on Antarctic and Southern Ocean topics from 2016 to 2024, using the Scopus database. We also looked at other factors, such as the countries affiliated with each paper.
The results show five significant changes are happening in the world of Antarctic research.
The number of Antarctic and Southern Ocean publications peaked in 2021 and then fell slightly yearly through to 2024.
While the United States has for decades been the leader in Antarctic research, China overtook them in 2022.
If we look only at the high-quality publications (those published in the best 25% of journals) China still took over the US, in 2024.
Of the top six countries in overall publications (China, the US, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and Russia) all except China have declined in publication numbers since 2016.
Although collaboration in publications is higher for Antarctic research than in non-Antarctic fields, Russia, India and China have anomalously low rates of co-authorship compared with many other signatory countries.
Why is this research decline a problem?
A recent parliamentary inquiry in Australia emphasised the need for funding certainty. In the UK, a House of Commons committee report considered it “imperative for the UK to significantly expand its research efforts in Antarctica”, in particular in relation to sea level rise.
US commentators have pointed to the inadequacy of the country’s icebreaker infrastructure. The Trump administration’s recent cuts to Antarctic funding are only likely to exacerbate the situation. Meanwhile China has built a fifth station in Antarctica and announced plans for a sixth.
Given the nation’s population and global influence, China’s leadership in Antarctic research is not surprising. If China were to take a lead in Antarctic environmental protection that matched its scientific heft, its move to lead position in the research ranks could be positive. Stronger multi-country collaboration in research could also strengthen overall cooperation.
But the overall drop in global Antarctic research investment is a problem however you look at it. We ignore it at our peril.
Elizabeth Leane receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Dutch Research Council, the Council on Australian and Latin American Relations DFAT and HX (Hurtigruten Expeditions). She has received in-kind support from Hurtigruten Expeditions in the recent past. The University of Tasmania is a member of the UArctic, which has provided support for this project.
Keith Larson is affiliated with the UArctic and European Polar Board. The UArctic paid for the development and publication of this report. The UArctic Thematic Network on Research Analytics and Bibliometrics conducted the analysis and developed the report. The Arctic Centre at Umeå University provided in-kind support for staff time on the report.
New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.
Global opinion, global weather
The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.
The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.
The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.
Public support for climate policies
The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.
Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.
Exposure to extreme weather events
The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.
Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.
In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.
Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.
In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.
Seeing the link between weather and climate change
In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.
Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).
Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.
Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.
This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.
Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.
South Africans want to shop more sustainably, according to research published in the journal Sustainable Development. But most can’t tell which products are environmentally friendly.
Some food manufacturers have introduced eco labels – a certification symbol placed on product packaging. This indicates the product meets specific environmental standards set by a third party organisation.
These labels are meant to signal to consumers that a product has been produced in a way that limits harm to the environment. But our recent study with 108 South African consumers showed low recognition of eco labels, widespread confusion, and a need for clearer guidance.
The results show that most South African shoppers are unfamiliar with these labels or unable to differentiate between real and fictional ones.
In the European Union eco labels like the EU Energy Label are easily understood and highly visible. They are also usually supported by government awareness campaigns. Other examples of labelling systems that work well include those of Germany and Japan.
These countries show that long term institutional support, mandatory labelling in key sectors, and consistent public messaging can greatly improve eco label recognition.
We concluded from our research that South Africa lacks that national visibility and public education, leaving even motivated consumers unsure of what labels to trust. Based on our findings we recommend steps businesses, government and nonprofits can take to ensure that eco labels are clear, visible and understood.
Eco labelling at its best
The EU Energy Label is used on appliances such as fridges, washing machines and light bulbs to indicate their energy efficiency on a scale from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient).
In countries like Germany and Japan, eco labels are government backed as well as being integrated into school curricula, public service announcements and shopping platforms.
Germany’s Blue Angel label, which states “protects the environment”, has been in use since the 1970s. It appears on over 12,000 products and services, including paper goods, cleaning products, paints and electronics, that meet strict environmental criteria. It is supported by ongoing public education campaigns.
In Japan the the Eco Mark appears on products with minimal environmental impact. It appears on items like stationery, detergents, packaging and appliances. Many retailers display explanations next to these products to help consumers understand the label.
South Africans struggle to identify eco labels
We conducted a structured online survey of 108 South African consumers. Participants were asked about their environmental awareness and their ability to recognise both real and fictional eco labels across ten images. According to the global directory of eco labels and environmental certification schemes, there are around 50 eco labels in South Africa.
The EU Energy Label was the most recognised (87%).
The Afrisco Certified Organic label, which is a legitimate South African label, was the least recognised, identified by just 22% of respondents.
Fictional labels were mistakenly identified as real by many participants, revealing widespread confusion.
Only 3 out of 10 labels were recognised by at least half the participants, suggesting a general lack of eco label awareness. These include the Energy Star Eco label; the EU Energy label and the Forest Stewardship council label.
Age and employment status were significantly related to environmental awareness. Older and employed individuals showed higher levels of awareness.
These findings suggest that consumers are not opposed to eco labels, they simply lack the knowledge and confidence to use them effectively.
Eco labels have the potential to build brand trust, drive green purchasing behaviour, and support national sustainability goals. But they only work if consumers recognise and trust them.
In South Africa, inconsistent use, small label size, and a lack of consumer education are holding eco labels back from achieving their purpose.
What businesses can do
Based on our findings, we recommend the following:
Use recognised and credible labels: Third-party certified labels are more trustworthy and reliable.
Improve label visibility: The most recognised label in our study was the EU Energy Label and was also the most prominent. Small, cluttered logos go unnoticed.
Educate your market: Explain what eco labels mean through packaging, marketing, and digital platforms.
Partner with government and NGOs: Awareness campaigns at national and community levels can help standardise eco label understanding.
Tailor communication efforts: Awareness efforts should consider age and employment demographics, as these affect levels of environmental engagement.
The way forward
South Africans are willing to support environmentally responsible products, but they need help identifying them.
Businesses, government and nonprofits all have a role to play in making eco labels clearer, more visible, and more trustworthy.
Eco labels must become more than symbols. They should be tools for transparency and trust, and a gateway to more sustainable shopping.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Peter M Macharia, Senior postdoctoral research fellow, Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp
The lack of reliable information about health facilities across sub-Saharan Africa became very clear during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amid a surge in emergency care needs, information was lacking about the location of facilities, bed capacity and oxygen availability, and even where to find medical specialists. This data could have enabled precise assessments of hospital surge capacity and geographic access to critical care. Peter Macharia and Emelda Okiro, whose research focuses on public health and equity of health service access in low resource settings, share the findings of their recent study, co-authored with colleagues.
What are open health facility databases?
A health facility is a service delivery point where healthcare services are provided. The facilities can range from small clinics and doctor’s offices to large teaching and referral hospitals.
A health facility database is a list of all health facilities in a country or geographic area, such as a district. A typical database should assign each health facility a unique code, name, size, type (from primary to tertiary), ownership (public or private), operational status (working or closed), location and subnational unit (county or district). It should also record services (emergency obstetric care, for example), capacity (number of beds, for example), infrastructure (electricity availability, for example), contact information (address and email), and when this information was last updated.
The ideal method of compiling this list is to conduct a census, as Kenya did in 2023. But this takes resources. Some countries have compiled lists from existing incomplete ones. Senegal did this and so did Kenya in 2003 and 2008.
This list should be open to stakeholders, including government agencies, development partners and researchers. Health facility lists must be shared through a governance framework that balances data sharing with protections for data subjects and creators. In some countries, such as Kenya and Malawi, these listings are accessible through web portals without additional permission. In others, such facility lists do not exist or require extra permission.
Why are they useful to have?
Facility listings can serve the needs of individuals and communities. They also serve sub-national, national and continental health objectives.
At the individual level, a facility list offers a choice of alternatives to health seekers. At the community level, the data can guide decisions like where to place community health workers, as seen in Mali and Sierra Leone.
Health lists are useful when distributing commodities such as bed nets and allocating resources based on the health needs of the areas they serve. They help in planning for vaccination campaigns by creating detailed immunisation microplans.
By taking account of the disease burden, social dynamics and environmental factors, health services can be tailored to specific needs.
Detailed maps of healthcare resources enable quicker emergency responses by pinpointing facilities equipped for specific crises. Disease surveillance systems depend on continuously collecting data from healthcare facilities.
At the continental level, lists are crucial for a coordinated health system response during pandemics and outbreaks. They can facilitate cross-border planning, pandemic preparedness and collaboration.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, these lists informed where to put additional resources such as makeshift hospitals or transport programmes for adults over 60 years of age.
The lists are used to identify vulnerable populations at risk of emerging pathogens and populations that can benefit from new health facilities.
Many problems arise if we don’t know where health facilities are or what they offer. Healthcare planning becomes inefficient. This can result in duplicate facility lists and the misallocation of resources, which leads to waste and inequities.
We can’t identify populations that lack services. Emergency responses weaken due to uncertainty about where best to move patients with specific conditions.
Resources are wasted when there are duplicate facility lists. For example, between 2010 and 2016, six government departments partnered with development organisations, resulting in ten lists of health facilities in Nigeria.
In Tanzania, over 10 different health facility lists existed in 2009. Maintained by donors and government agencies, the function-specific lists didn’t work together to share information easily and accurately. This prompted the need for a national master facility list.
What needs to happen to build one?
A comprehensive list of health facilities can be compiled through mapping exercises or from existing lists. The health ministry should take responsibility for setting up, developing and updating this list.
Partnerships are crucial for developing facility lists. Stakeholders include donors, implementing and humanitarian partners, technical advisors and research institutions. Many of these have their own project-based lists, which should integrate into a centralised facility list managed by the ministry. The health ministry must foster a transparent environment, encouraging citizens and stakeholders to contribute to enhancing health facility data.
Political and financial commitment from governments is essential. Creating and maintaining a proper list requires significant investment. Expertise and resources are necessary to keep it updated.
A commitment to open data is a necessary step. Open access to these lists makes them more complete, reliable and useful.
Peter Macharia is funded by Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- Belgium (FWO, number 1201925N) for his Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship.
Emelda Okiro receives funding for her research from the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (#224272).
The global ecosystem of climate finance is complex, constantly changing and sometimes hard to understand. But understanding it is critical to demanding a green transition that’s just and fair. That’s why The Conversation has collaborated with climate finance experts to create this user-friendly guide, in partnership with Vogue Business. With definitions and short videos, we’ll add to this glossary as new terms emerge.
Blue bonds
Blue bonds are debt instruments designed to finance ocean-related conservation, like protecting coral reefs or sustainable fishing. They’re modelled after green bonds but focus specifically on the health of marine ecosystems – this is a key pillar of climate stability.
By investing in blue bonds, governments and private investors can fund marine projects that deliver both environmental benefits and long-term financial returns. Seychelles issued the first blue bond in 2018. Now, more are emerging as ocean conservation becomes a greater priority for global sustainability efforts.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon border adjustment mechanism
Did you know that imported steel could soon face a carbon tax at the EU border? That’s because the carbon border adjustment mechanism is about to shake up the way we trade, produce and price carbon.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a proposed EU policy to put a carbon price on imports like iron, cement, fertiliser, aluminium and electricity. If a product is made in a country with weaker climate policies, the importer must pay the difference between that country’s carbon price and the EU’s. The goal is to avoid “carbon leakage” – when companies relocate to avoid emissions rules and to ensure fair competition on climate action.
But this mechanism is more than just a tariff tool. It’s a bold attempt to reshape global trade. Countries exporting to the EU may be pushed to adopt greener manufacturing or face higher tariffs.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is controversial: some call it climate protectionism, others argue it could incentivise low-carbon innovation worldwide and be vital for achieving climate justice. Many developing nations worry it could penalise them unfairly unless there’s climate finance to support greener transitions.
Carbon border adjustment mechanism is still evolving, but it’s already forcing companies, investors and governments to rethink emissions accounting, supply chains and competitiveness. It’s a carbon price with global consequences.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon budget
The Paris agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030. The carbon budget is the maximum amount of CO₂ emissions allowed, if we want a 67% chance of staying within this limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets amount to 400 billion tonnes of CO₂ from 2020 onwards.
Think of the carbon budget as a climate allowance. Once it has been spent, the risk of extreme weather or sea level rise increases sharply. If emissions continue unchecked, the budget will be exhausted within years, risking severe climate consequences. The IPCC sets the global carbon budget based on climate science, and governments use this framework to set national emission targets, climate policies and pathways to net zero emissions.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Carbon credits
Carbon credits are like a permit that allow companies to release a certain amount of carbon into the air. One credit usually equals one tonne of CO₂. These credits are issued by the local government or another authorised body and can be bought and sold. Think of it like a budget allowance for pollution. It encourages cuts in carbon emissions each year to stay within those global climate targets.
The aim is to put a price on carbon to encourage cuts in emissions. If a company reduces its emissions and has leftover credits, it can sell them to another company that is going over its limit. But there are issues. Some argue that carbon credit schemes allow polluters to pay their way out of real change, and not all credits are from trustworthy projects. Although carbon credits can play a role in addressing the climate crisis, they are not a solution on their own.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon credits explained.
Carbon offsetting
Carbon offsetting is a way for people or organisations to make up for the carbon emissions they are responsible for. For example, if you contribute to emissions by flying, driving or making goods, you can help balance that out by supporting projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This might include planting trees (which absorb carbon dioxide) or building wind farms to produce renewable energy.
The idea is that your support helps cancel out the damage you are doing. For example, if your flight creates one tonne of carbon dioxide, you pay to support a project that removes the same amount.
While this sounds like a win-win, carbon offsetting is not perfect. Some argue that it lets people feel better without really changing their behaviour, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as greenwashing.
Not all projects are effective or well managed. For instance, some tree planting initiatives might have taken place anyway, even without the offset funding, deeming your contribution inconsequential. Others might plant the non-native trees in areas where they are unlikely to reach their potential in terms of absorbing carbon emissions.
So, offsetting can help, but it is no magic fix. It works best alongside real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage low-carbon lifestyles or supply chains.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon offsetting explained.
Carbon tax
A carbon tax is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a direct price on CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.
A carbon tax is grounded in the concept of the social cost of carbon. This is an estimate of the economic damage caused by emitting one tonne of CO₂, including climate-related health, infrastructure and ecosystem impacts.
A carbon tax is typically levied per tonne of CO₂ emitted. The tax can be applied either upstream (on fossil fuel producers) or downstream (on consumers or power generators). This makes carbon-intensive activities more expensive, it incentivises nations, businesses and people to reduce their emissions, while untaxed renewable energy becomes more competitively priced and appealing.
Carbon tax was first introduced by Finland in 1990. Since then, more than 39 jurisdictions have implemented similar schemes. According to the World Bank, carbon pricing mechanisms (that’s both carbon taxes and emissions trading systems) now cover about 24% of global emissions. The remaining 76% are not priced, mainly due to limited coverage in both sectors and geographical areas, plus persistent fossil fuel subsidies. Expanding coverage would require extending carbon pricing to sectors like agriculture and transport, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and strengthening international governance.
What is carbon tax?
Sweden has one of the world’s highest carbon tax rates and has cut emissions by 33% since 1990 while maintaining economic growth. The policy worked because Sweden started early, applied the tax across many industries and maintained clear, consistent communication that kept the public on board.
Canada introduced a national carbon tax in 2019. In Canada, most of the revenue from carbon taxes is returned directly to households through annual rebates, making the scheme revenue-neutral for most families. However, despite its economic logic, inflation and rising fuel prices led to public discontent – especially as many citizens were unaware they were receiving rebates.
Carbon taxes face challenges including political resistance, fairness concerns and low public awareness. Their success depends on clear communication and visible reinvestment of revenues into climate or social goals. A 2025 study that surveyed 40,000 people in 20 countries found that support for carbon taxes increases significantly when revenues are used for environmental infrastructure, rather than returned through tax rebates.
By Meilan Yan, associate professor and senior lecturer in financial economics, Loughborough University
Climate resilience
Floods, wildfires, heatwaves and rising seas are pushing our cities, towns and neighbourhoods to their limits. But there’s a powerful idea that’s helping cities fight back: climate resilience.
Resilience refers to the ability of a system, such as a city, a community or even an ecosystem – to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
Sometimes people say resilience is about bouncing back. But it’s not just about surviving the next storm. It’s about adapting, evolving and thriving in a changing world.
Resilience means building smarter and better. It means designing homes that stay cool during heatwaves. Roads that don’t wash away in floods. Power grids that don’t fail when the weather turns extreme.
It’s also about people. A truly resilient city protects its most vulnerable. It ensures that everyone – regardless of income, age or background – can weather the storm.
And resilience isn’t just reactive. It’s about using science, local knowledge and innovation to reduce a risk before disaster strikes. From restoring wetlands to cool cities and absorb floods, to creating early warning systems for heatwaves, climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our cities.
By Paul O’Hare, senior lecturer in geography and development, Manchester Metropolitan University
The meaning of climate resilience.
Climate risk disclosure
Climate risk disclosure refers to how companies report the risks they face from climate change, such as flood damage, supply chain disruptions or regulatory costs. It includes both physical risks (like storms) and transition risks (like changing laws or consumer preferences).
Mandatory disclosures, such as those proposed by the UK and EU, aim to make climate-related risks transparent to investors. Done well, these reports can shape capital flows toward more sustainable business models. Done poorly, they become greenwashing tools.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Emissions trading scheme
An emissions trading scheme is the primary market-based approach for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in many countries, including Australia, Canada, China and Mexico.
Part of a government’s job is to decide how much of the economy’s carbon emissions it wants to avoid in order to fight climate change. It must put a cap on carbon emissions that economic production is not allowed to surpass. Preferably, the polluters (that’s the manufacturers, fossil fuel companies) should be the ones paying for the cost of climate mitigation.
Regulators could simply tell all the firms how much they are allowed to emit over the next ten years or so. But giving every firm the same allowance across the board is not cost efficient, because avoiding carbon emissions is much harder for some firms (such as steel producers) than others (such as tax consultants). Since governments cannot know each firm’s specific cost profile either, it can’t customise the allowances. Also, monitoring whether polluters actually abide by their assigned limits is extremely costly.
An emissions trading scheme cleverly solves this dilemma using the cap-and-trade mechanism. Instead of assigning each polluter a fixed quota and risking inefficiencies, the government issues a large number of tradable permits – each worth, say, a tonne of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) – that sum up to the cap. Firms that can cut greenhouse gas emissions relatively cheaply can then trade their surplus permits to those who find it harder – at a price that makes both better off.
By Mathias Weidinger, environmental economist, University of Oxford
Emissions trading schemes, explained by climate finance expert Mathias Weidinger.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing
ESG investing stands for environmental, social and governance investing. In simple terms, these are a set of standards that investors use to screen a company’s potential investments.
ESG means choosing to invest in companies that are not only profitable but also responsible. Investors use ESG metrics to assess risks (such as climate liability, labour practices) and align portfolios with sustainability goals by looking at how a company affects our planet and treats its people and communities. While there isn’t one single global body governing ESG, various organisations, ratings agencies and governments all contribute to setting and evolving these metrics.
For example, investing in a company committed to renewable energy and fair labour practices might be considered “ESG aligned”. Supporters believe ESG helps identify risks and create long-term value. Critics argue it can be vague or used for greenwashing, where companies appear sustainable without real action. ESG works best when paired with transparency and clear data. A barrier is that standards vary, and it’s not always clear what counts as ESG.
Why do financial companies and institutions care? Issues like climate change and nature loss pose significant risks, affecting company values and the global economy.
However, gathering reliable ESG information can be difficult. Companies often self-report, and the data isn’t always standardised or up to date. Researchers – including my team at the University of Oxford – are using geospatial data, like satellite imagery and artificial intelligence, to develop global databases for high-impact industries, across all major sectors and geographies, and independently assess environmental and social risks and impacts.
For instance, we can analyse satellite images of a facility over time to monitor its emissions effect on nature and biodiversity, or assess deforestation linked to a company’s supply chain. This allows us to map supply chains, identify high-impact assets, and detect hidden risks and opportunities in key industries, providing an objective, real-time look at their environmental footprint.
The goal is for this to improve ESG ratings and provide clearer, more consistent insights for investors. This approach could help us overcome current data limitations to build a more sustainable financial future.
By Amani Maalouf, senior researcher in spatial finance, University of Oxford
Environmental, social and governance investing explained.
Financed emissions
Financed emissions are the greenhouse gas emissions linked to a bank’s or investor’s lending and investment portfolio, rather than their own operations. For example, a bank that funds a coal mine or invests in fossil fuels is indirectly responsible for the carbon those activities produce.
Measuring financed emissions helps reveal the real climate impact of financial institutions not just their office energy use. It’s a cornerstone of climate accountability in finance and is becoming essential under net zero pledges.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Green bonds
Green bonds are loans issued to fund environmentally beneficial projects, such as energy-efficient buildings or clean transportation. Investors choose them to support climate solutions while earning returns.
Green bonds are a major tool to finance the shift to a low-carbon economy by directing finance toward climate solutions. As climate costs rise, green bonds could help close the funding gap while ensuring transparency and accountability.
Green bonds are required to ensure funds are spent as promised. For instance, imagine a city wants to upgrade its public transportation by adding electric buses to reduce pollution. Instead of raising taxes or slashing other budgets, the city can issue green bonds to raise the necessary capital. Investors buy the bonds, the city gets the funding, and the environment benefits from cleaner air and fewer emissions.
The growing participation of government issuers has improved the transparency and reliability of these investments. The green bond market has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the green bond market reached US$2.9 trillion (£2.1 trillion) in 2024 – nearly six times larger than in 2018. At the same time, annual issuance (the total value of green bonds issued in a year) hit US$700 billion, highlighting the increasing role of green finance in tackling climate change.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Just transition
Just transition is the process of moving to a low-carbon society that is environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. In a broad sense, a just transition means focusing on creating a more fair and equal society.
Just transition has existed as a concept since the 1970s. It was originally applied to the green energy transition, protecting workers in the fossil fuel industry as we move towards more sustainable alternatives.
These days, it has so many overlapping issues of justice hidden within it, so the concept is hard to define. Even at the level of UN climate negotiations, global leaders struggle to agree on what a just transition means.
The big battle is between developed countries, who want a very restrictive definition around jobs and skills, and developing countries, who are looking for a much more holistic approach that considers wider system change and includes considerations around human rights, Indigenous people and creating an overall fairer global society.
A just transition is essentially about imagining a future where we have moved beyond fossil fuels and society works better for everyone – but that can look very different in a European city compared to a rural setting in south-east Asia.
For example, in a British city it might mean fewer cars and better public transport. In a rural setting, it might mean new ways of growing crops that are more sustainable, and building homes that are heatwave resistant.
By Alix Dietzel, climate justice and climate policy expert, University of Bristol
The meaning of just transition.
Loss and damage
A global loss and damage fund was agreed by nations at the UN climate summit (Cop27) in 2022. This means that the rich countries of the world put money into a fund that the least developed countries can then call upon when they have a climate emergency.
At the moment, the loss and damage fund is made up of relatively small pots of money. Much more will be needed to provide relief to those who need it most now and in the future.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains loss and damage.
Mitigation v adaptation
Mitigation means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Adaptation means adjusting to its effects, like building sea walls or growing heat-resistant crops. Both are essential: mitigation tackles the cause, while adaptation tackles the symptoms.
Globally, most funding goes to mitigation, but vulnerable communities often need adaptation support most. Balancing the two is a major challenge in climate policy, especially for developing countries facing immediate climate threats.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Nationally determined contributions
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris agreement, the global effort to collectively combat climate change. NDCs are individual climate action plans created by each country. These targets and strategies outline how a country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
Each nation sets its own goals based on its own circumstances and capabilities – there’s no standard NDC. These plans should be updated every five years and countries are encouraged to gradually increase their climate ambitions over time.
The aim is for NDCs to drive real action by guiding policies, attracting investment and inspiring innovation in clean technologies. But current NDCs fall short of the Paris agreement goals and many countries struggle to turn their plans into a reality. NDCs also vary widely in scope and detail so it’s hard to compare efforts across the board. Stronger international collaboration and greater accountability will be crucial.
By Doug Specht, reader in cultural geography and communication, University of Westminster
Fashion depends on water, soil and biodiversity – all natural capital. And forward-thinking designers are now asking: how do we create rather than deplete, how do we restore rather than extract?
Natural capital is the value assigned to the stock of forests, soils, oceans and even minerals such as lithium. It sustains every part of our economy. It’s the bees that pollinate our crops. It’s the wetlands that filter our water and it’s the trees that store carbon and cool our cities.
If we fail to value nature properly, we risk losing it. But if we succeed, we unlock a future that is not only sustainable but also truly regenerative.
My team at the University of Oxford is developing tools to integrate nature into national balance sheets, advising governments on biodiversity, and we’re helping industries from fashion to finance embed nature into their decision making.
Natural capital, explained by a climate finance expert.
By Mette Morsing, professor of business sustainability and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford
Net zero
Reaching net zero means reducing the amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere to zero. This concept was popularised by the Paris agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the UN climate summit (Cop21) in 2015 to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are some emissions, from farming and aviation for example, that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach absolute zero. Hence, the “net”. This allows people, businesses and countries to find ways to suck greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere, effectively cancelling out emissions while trying to reduce them. This can include reforestation, rewilding, direct air capture and carbon capture and storage. The goal is to reach net zero: the point at which no extra greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains net zero.
For more expert explainer videos, visit The Conversation’s quick climate dictionary playlist here on YouTube.
Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Amani Maalouf receives funding from IKEA Foundation and UK Research and Innovation (NE/V017756/1).
Narmin Nahidi is affiliated with several academic associations, including the Financial Management Association (FMA), British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA), American Finance Association (AFA), and the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CMBE). These affiliations do not influence the content of this article.
Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.
Alix Dietzel, Dongna Zhang, Doug Specht, Mathias Weidinger, Meilan Yan, and Sankar Sivarajah do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Loan to support micro and small enterprises, green investments, and women-led businesses
In a move to boost inclusive and sustainable development across Moldova, the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) has extended a EUR 3 million Combined MSME, Green and Gender Equality Credit Line to Prime Capital, BSTDB existing partner since 2021. The loan will further deepen the partnership, including by diversification of use of proceeds to facilitate access to finance for important economic purposes.
BSTDB financing will strengthen Prime Capital’s capacity to support micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs)—a backbone of the Moldovan economy and will also target green investments and women-led businesses, areas that are increasingly vital for long-term resilience and social equity.
The funds will be channeled into Prime Capital’s dedicated programmes that focus on energy efficiency and women in business, helping scale up initiatives that are already making an impact at domestic level. By strengthening these targeted initiatives, the BSTDB contributes to the broader goals of climate resilience, social equity, and regional development.
Commenting on the deal, Dr. Serhat Köksal, President, said: “This financing reflects our strong commitment to support micro, small and medium entrepreneurs, fostering greater opportunities for women-led businesses, and accelerating the green transition. By partnering with Prime Capital, we are helping ensure that capital reaches those who can drive inclusive and sustainable growth in Moldova and bolster economic resilience across the Black Sea Region.”
“We are proud to strengthen our partnership with the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank through this expanded facility, which will help us deliver on our mission to empower Moldova’s entrepreneurs—especially women and those championing green innovation. This funding is not only timely but also strategic, as it enables us to extend credit to areas with the greatest transformative potential: MSMEs, sustainable energy, and gender-inclusive business growth. By aligning with BSTDB’s regional development goals, we are helping build a more resilient, inclusive, and future-ready Moldovan economy.” – said Carmina Vicol, CEO of Prime Capital.
OCN Prime Capital SRLis one of the leading microfinance companies in Moldova. As of end-September 2024, Prime Capital reported total assets of USD 21.7 million and total equity of USD 14.3 million with capitalization ratio of 66%. Prime Capital is the 11th largest microfinance company in Moldova (out of 118 non-bank financial institutions). The Company’s head office and microlending office are based in Chisinau, two branches are located in the north and south of the country and it has 52 employees.
The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) is an international financial institution established by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine. The BSTDB headquarters are in Thessaloniki, Greece. BSTDB supports economic development and regional cooperation by providing loans, credit lines, equity and guarantees for projects and trade financing in the public and private sectors in its member countries. The authorized capital of the Bank is EUR 3.45 billion. For information on BSTDB, visit www.bstdb.org.
Loan to support micro and small enterprises, green investments, and women-led businesses
In a move to boost inclusive and sustainable development across Moldova, the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) has extended a EUR 3 million Combined MSME, Green and Gender Equality Credit Line to Prime Capital, BSTDB existing partner since 2021. The loan will further deepen the partnership, including by diversification of use of proceeds to facilitate access to finance for important economic purposes.
BSTDB financing will strengthen Prime Capital’s capacity to support micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs)—a backbone of the Moldovan economy and will also target green investments and women-led businesses, areas that are increasingly vital for long-term resilience and social equity.
The funds will be channeled into Prime Capital’s dedicated programmes that focus on energy efficiency and women in business, helping scale up initiatives that are already making an impact at domestic level. By strengthening these targeted initiatives, the BSTDB contributes to the broader goals of climate resilience, social equity, and regional development.
Commenting on the deal, Dr. Serhat Köksal, President, said: “This financing reflects our strong commitment to support micro, small and medium entrepreneurs, fostering greater opportunities for women-led businesses, and accelerating the green transition. By partnering with Prime Capital, we are helping ensure that capital reaches those who can drive inclusive and sustainable growth in Moldova and bolster economic resilience across the Black Sea Region.”
“We are proud to strengthen our partnership with the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank through this expanded facility, which will help us deliver on our mission to empower Moldova’s entrepreneurs—especially women and those championing green innovation. This funding is not only timely but also strategic, as it enables us to extend credit to areas with the greatest transformative potential: MSMEs, sustainable energy, and gender-inclusive business growth. By aligning with BSTDB’s regional development goals, we are helping build a more resilient, inclusive, and future-ready Moldovan economy.” – said Carmina Vicol, CEO of Prime Capital.
OCN Prime Capital SRLis one of the leading microfinance companies in Moldova. As of end-September 2024, Prime Capital reported total assets of USD 21.7 million and total equity of USD 14.3 million with capitalization ratio of 66%. Prime Capital is the 11th largest microfinance company in Moldova (out of 118 non-bank financial institutions). The Company’s head office and microlending office are based in Chisinau, two branches are located in the north and south of the country and it has 52 employees.
The Black Sea Trade and Development Bank (BSTDB) is an international financial institution established by Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine. The BSTDB headquarters are in Thessaloniki, Greece. BSTDB supports economic development and regional cooperation by providing loans, credit lines, equity and guarantees for projects and trade financing in the public and private sectors in its member countries. The authorized capital of the Bank is EUR 3.45 billion. For information on BSTDB, visit www.bstdb.org.
AI-powered assistive devices, like hearing aids, are changing how the people who use them experience public space.(Shutterstock)
New applications and the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with wearable devices are changing the way users interact with their environments and each other. The impacts and reach of these new technologies have yet to be fully understood.
Connections between technologies and bodies is not a new thing for many disabled persons. Assistive technologies — tools and products designed to support people with disabilities — have played a part in mitigating built and institutional barriers experienced by disabled persons for decades.
While not strictly considered assistive, immersive and wearable technologies have the potential to change the relationship between disabled users and their experience of place.
For example, Ray-Ban’s Meta glasses use AI to describe what the cameras are capturing using the Be My Eyes app. Using OpenAI’s large language model, ChatGPT, this effectively turns a user’s smart phone into a vision assistant.
The availability and production of environmental data from these technologies may impact how we relate to each other, how we move through and understand space, and how we engage with the physical environment around us at any given moment.
Sam Seavey, founder of TheBlindLife.com, reviews the possibilities and limitations of Apple’s VisionPro. (The Blind Life)
We’re at a critical juncture where AI-enabled technologies used by individuals may profoundly impact our urban futures.
What happens, for example, when wearables make any “place” a digital work or play place? What does a largely private-sector, consumer-driven, AI-enabled digital intervention into a city’s spaces mean for planning, zoning and taxation? What are the environmental costs of the global AI project?
And crucially, who gets to participate in this digital reimagining?
AI and the city
While access can be challenging — wearables are often costly — ableist thinking regarding the use of technology to render invisible Blind and/or Deaf people and culture is also a problem. Some people might naively assume that all Blind and Deaf people are universally seeking a bio-technological “miracle.”
There are also other challenges: how a technology captures or describes its data may not match up to a user’s pre-existing sense of place. Moreover, access to tech can produce some unintended consequences, including the erosion of in-person community building among disabled people.
My hearing aids use AI and machine learning to sense and adjust my sound environment. They help me cope with the ways in which the places of my everyday life — such as my home or the lecture hall — are generally configured for people without hearing loss.
When I use my hearing aids, I find that the city has never sounded so wonderful, and yet sometimes irritatingly loud. The sound of birds is one thing; the grinding sound of a breaking subway is another entirely.
Cumulative exposure to noisy indoor and outdoor places of the city poses auditory health risks, such as noise-induced hearing loss or tinnitus, and can contribute to poor health more broadly. I have to be careful about ongoing noise exposure, and by adjusting the volume of my hearing aids, I can turn down the city when I want to.
Future bodies and urban futures
AI-powered technologies can exacerbate issues of access, privilege and freedom of movement. This happens both through who is able to purchase and use devices, as well as through data and their applications. Data may be biased in terms of race, gender, sexuality and disability.
Scientific research and media representations tend to highlight the benevolent possibilities of technologies for “repairing” bodies conceived as being functionally medically deficient.
Much less is said about disabled persons controlling the narrative, taking up key roles in the messy terrain of AI, machine learning and data governance, and in the planning and design of future cities.
Digital modelling
We are also witnessing growing interest in the digital twinning — creating highly accurate digital models — of everything from human hearts to entire cities.
Not everyone can, should or wishes to be technologically “assisted” or augmented. There are medical, identity and culture, affordability, legal, moral and ethical concerns.
Other issues raised by brain-computer interface research, for example, include concerns about legal capacity and ownership of the self, including ownership of device-generated data.
In a study on the impact of neural technologies, researchers shared the legal repercussions relating to two disabled people deprived of voting rights in Spain. The person who recovered the ability to communicate autonomously using their finger and a computer had their rights restored, while the other, who used a human intermediary, did not.
Where does the person end and the technology begin, and vice versa? Who gets to decide?
Future technologies
As the use of AI and assistive technologies increases in everyday urban life, we will need to address these questions sooner rather than later.
And if disabled persons are not adequately involved in these discussions and decisions, then cities will be less — rather than more — accessible.
Ron Buliung does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Mountains on the moon as seen by NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. (NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University)
In science-fiction stories, companies often mine the moon or asteroids. While this may seem far-fetched, this idea is edging closer to becoming reality.
Celestial bodies like the moon contain valuable resources, such as lunar regolith — also known as moon dust — and helium-3. These resources could serve a range of applications, including making rocket propellant and generating energy to sustaining long missions, bringing benefits in space and on Earth.
The first objective on this journey is being able to collect lunar regolith. One company taking up this challenge is ispace, a Japanese space exploration company ispace that signed a contract with NASA in 2020 for the collection and transfer of ownership of lunar regolith.
The company recently attempted to land its RESILIENCE lunar lander, but the mission was ultimately unsuccessful. Still, this endeavour marked a significant move toward the commercialization of space resources.
These circumstances give rise to a fundamental question: what are the legal rules governing the exploitation of space resources? The answer is both simple and complex, as there is a mix of international agreements and evolving regulations to consider.
Space activities have exponentially evolved since the treaty’s adoption. In the 60 years following the launch of Sputnik 1 — the first satellite placed in orbit — less than 500 space objects were launched annually. But since 2018, this number has risen into the thousands, with nearly 3,000 launched in 2024.
Because of this, the treaty is often judged as inadequate to address the current complexities of space activities, particularly resource exploitation.
A longstanding debate centres on whether Article II of the treaty, which prohibits the appropriation of outer space — including the moon and other celestial bodies — also prohibits space mining.
The prevailing position is that Article II solely bans the appropriation of territory, not the extraction of resources themselves.
We are now at a crucial moment in the development of space law. Arguing over whether extraction is legal serves no purpose. Instead, the focus must shift to ensuring resource extraction is carried out in accordance with principles that ensure the safe and responsible use of outer space.
International and national space laws
A significant development in the governance of space resources has been the adoption Artemis Accords, which — as of June 2025 — has 55 signatory nations. The accords reflect a growing international consensus concerning the exploitation of space resources.
Notably, Section 10 of the accords indicates that the exploitation of space resources does not constitute appropriation, and therefore doesn’t violate the Outer Space Treaty.
Considering the typically slow pace of multilateral negotiations, a handful of nations introduced national legislation. These laws govern the legality of space resource exploitation, allowing private companies to request licenses to conduct this type of activity.
Among these, Luxembourg’s legal framework is the most complete. It provides a series of requirements to provide authorization for the exploitation of space resources. In fact, ispace’s licence to collect lunar regolith was obtained under this regime.
This first high-resolution image taken on the first day of the Artemis I mission by a camera on the tip of one of Orion’s solar arrays. The spacecraft was 57,000 miles from Earth when the image was captured. (NASA)
The rest of the regulations usually tend to limit themselves to proclaiming the legality of this activity without entering into too much detail and deferring the specifics of implementation to future regulations.
While these initiatives served to put space resources at the forefront of international forums, they also risk regulatory fragmentation, as different countries adopt varying standards and approaches.
In May 2025, the chair of the working group, Steven Freeland, presented a draft of recommended principles based on input from member states.
These principles reaffirm the freedom of use and exploration of outer space for peaceful purposes, while introducing rules pertaining to the safety of the activities and their sustainability, as well as the protection of the environment, both of Earth and outer space.
The development of a legal framework for space resources is still in its early stages. The working group is expected to submit its final report by 2027, but the non-binding nature of the principles raises concerns about their enforcement and application.
As humanity moves closer to extracting and using space resources, the need for a cohesive and responsible governance system has never been greater.
Martina Elia Vitoloni does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robert Bird, Professor of Business Law & Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics, University of Connecticut
Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.
The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.
When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.
Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust
Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.
A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.
When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.
For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.
When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.
Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.
If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.
Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.
For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.
Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.
American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.
The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.
Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.
Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.
Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.
Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.
Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.
Robert Bird does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – France – By Jérémy Lemarié, Maître de conférences à l’Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA)
Invented in Hawaii, surfing gained popularity in the United States and Australia in the 1950s before becoming a global phenomenon. Now practiced in more than 150 countries, its spread has been driven by media and tourism. Surf tourism involves travelling to destinations to catch waves, either with a surfboard or through activities such as body surfing or bodyboarding. Tourists range from seasoned surfers to beginners eager to learn.
The allure of California
For many, surf tourism evokes exotic imagery shaped by California production companies. Columbia Pictures in 1959 and Paramount Pictures in 1961 introduced surfing to the middle class, showcasing the sport as a gateway to summer adventure and escape. However, it was the 1966 movie The Endless Summer, directed and produced by Bruce Brown, that became a box office success. The film follows two Californians travelling the globe in search of the perfect wave, which they ultimately find in South Africa. Beneath the seemingly lighthearted portrayal of a “surf safari”, it carries undertones of colonial ambition.
In the film, the Californians tell people in Africa that waves are untapped resources ready to be named and conquered. This sense of Western cultural dominance over populations in poorer countries has permeated surf tourism. Since the 1970s, French surfers have flocked to Morocco for its long-breaking waves, Australians have flocked to Indonesia and Californians to Mexico. The expansion of surfing to Africa, Asia and Latin America was enabled by easier international travel and economic disparities between visitors and hosts.
Surfing’s impact on local communities
Indonesia, for instance, became a surfing hotspot after Australian surfers started to explore the waves of Bali and the Mentawai Islands in the 1970s. Once remote regions with modest living standards, these areas saw tourism infrastructure mushroom to meet demand. Today, destinations such as Uluwatu in Bali and Padang Padang in Sumatra attract surfers of all skill levels.
Similarly, Morocco has experienced a surge in surf tourism, with spots such as Taghazout drawing European visitors in search of affordable waves and sunshine. While this has boosted local economies, it has also raised concerns about environmental degradation and the strain of tourism on previously untouched areas.
The challenges of overtourism in coastal areas
Although surfing is often seen as an activity in harmony with nature, mass tourism has created tensions between local surfers and visitors. Overtourism refers to the negative impact of excessive tourist numbers on natural environments and local communities.
One response to overtourism is localism – where local surfers assert ownership of waves, sometimes discouraging or even intimidating outsiders. This has been particularly pronounced in economically dependent surf destinations. For example, in Hawaii during the 1970s and 1980s, local surfers protested against the influx of professional Australian surfers and international competitions. Today, localism persists globally, from Maroubra in Sydney to Boucau-Tarnos in France’s Nouvelle-Aquitaine region. These places are not systematically off-limits to beginners, but major conflicts can arise during peak tourist seasons.
Surf schools, while crucial for teaching newcomers, also exacerbate crowding. During high seasons, beaches such as Côte des Basques in Biarritz become overcrowded, straining relations between experienced surfers, instructors and novices. Beginners, often unaware of surf etiquette and safety rules, contribute to frustrations among seasoned surfers.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
The role of public authorities
In response to these challenges, public initiatives have emerged to promote sustainable surf tourism. For instance, the Costa Rican government has established marine protected areas and regulated tourism activities to preserve a part of the coastal environment. Local authorities have also begun capping the number of surf schools and making access to the practice more difficult.
In southwestern France, municipalities use public service delegations (DSP), temporary occupation authorisations (AOT) and other tools to regulate surf schools operating on public beaches. Environmental awareness programmes have been launched to educate tourists on responsible behaviour toward beaches and oceans.
Gaps in regulation
Despite these measures, many coastal regions face insufficient action to address the environmental and social challenges posed by surf tourism. In Fiji, a 2010 decree deregulated the surf tourism industry, eliminating traditional indigenous rights to coastal and reef areas. This allowed unregulated development of tourism infrastructure, often ignoring long-term ecological impacts.
Similar issues are seen in Morocco, where lax regulations allow foreign investors to exploit coastal land for hotel development, often providing little benefit to local communities.
Yet, there are success stories. In Santa Cruz, California, the initiative Save Our Shores mobilises citizens and tourists to protect beaches through anti-pollution campaigns and regular cleanups.
Surf tourism has brought significant economic benefits to many coastal regions. However, it has also introduced social and environmental challenges, including localism, overcrowding and ecological strain. Managing these issues requires a collaborative approach, with governments, local stakeholders and tourists working together to preserve the sport’s connection to nature.
This article was published as part of the 2024 Fête de la Science, of which The Conversation France was a partner. The year’s theme, “Oceans of Knowledge,” explored the wonders of the marine world.
Jérémy Lemarié is a member of the Fulbright network, as the recipient of the “Chercheuses et Chercheurs” grant from the Franco-American Commission in 2022-2023.
Source: The Conversation – France – By Jérémy Lemarié, Maître de conférences à l’Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA)
Invented in Hawaii, surfing gained popularity in the United States and Australia in the 1950s before becoming a global phenomenon. Now practiced in more than 150 countries, its spread has been driven by media and tourism. Surf tourism involves travelling to destinations to catch waves, either with a surfboard or through activities such as body surfing or bodyboarding. Tourists range from seasoned surfers to beginners eager to learn.
The allure of California
For many, surf tourism evokes exotic imagery shaped by California production companies. Columbia Pictures in 1959 and Paramount Pictures in 1961 introduced surfing to the middle class, showcasing the sport as a gateway to summer adventure and escape. However, it was the 1966 movie The Endless Summer, directed and produced by Bruce Brown, that became a box office success. The film follows two Californians travelling the globe in search of the perfect wave, which they ultimately find in South Africa. Beneath the seemingly lighthearted portrayal of a “surf safari”, it carries undertones of colonial ambition.
In the film, the Californians tell people in Africa that waves are untapped resources ready to be named and conquered. This sense of Western cultural dominance over populations in poorer countries has permeated surf tourism. Since the 1970s, French surfers have flocked to Morocco for its long-breaking waves, Australians have flocked to Indonesia and Californians to Mexico. The expansion of surfing to Africa, Asia and Latin America was enabled by easier international travel and economic disparities between visitors and hosts.
Surfing’s impact on local communities
Indonesia, for instance, became a surfing hotspot after Australian surfers started to explore the waves of Bali and the Mentawai Islands in the 1970s. Once remote regions with modest living standards, these areas saw tourism infrastructure mushroom to meet demand. Today, destinations such as Uluwatu in Bali and Padang Padang in Sumatra attract surfers of all skill levels.
Similarly, Morocco has experienced a surge in surf tourism, with spots such as Taghazout drawing European visitors in search of affordable waves and sunshine. While this has boosted local economies, it has also raised concerns about environmental degradation and the strain of tourism on previously untouched areas.
The challenges of overtourism in coastal areas
Although surfing is often seen as an activity in harmony with nature, mass tourism has created tensions between local surfers and visitors. Overtourism refers to the negative impact of excessive tourist numbers on natural environments and local communities.
One response to overtourism is localism – where local surfers assert ownership of waves, sometimes discouraging or even intimidating outsiders. This has been particularly pronounced in economically dependent surf destinations. For example, in Hawaii during the 1970s and 1980s, local surfers protested against the influx of professional Australian surfers and international competitions. Today, localism persists globally, from Maroubra in Sydney to Boucau-Tarnos in France’s Nouvelle-Aquitaine region. These places are not systematically off-limits to beginners, but major conflicts can arise during peak tourist seasons.
Surf schools, while crucial for teaching newcomers, also exacerbate crowding. During high seasons, beaches such as Côte des Basques in Biarritz become overcrowded, straining relations between experienced surfers, instructors and novices. Beginners, often unaware of surf etiquette and safety rules, contribute to frustrations among seasoned surfers.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
The role of public authorities
In response to these challenges, public initiatives have emerged to promote sustainable surf tourism. For instance, the Costa Rican government has established marine protected areas and regulated tourism activities to preserve a part of the coastal environment. Local authorities have also begun capping the number of surf schools and making access to the practice more difficult.
In southwestern France, municipalities use public service delegations (DSP), temporary occupation authorisations (AOT) and other tools to regulate surf schools operating on public beaches. Environmental awareness programmes have been launched to educate tourists on responsible behaviour toward beaches and oceans.
Gaps in regulation
Despite these measures, many coastal regions face insufficient action to address the environmental and social challenges posed by surf tourism. In Fiji, a 2010 decree deregulated the surf tourism industry, eliminating traditional indigenous rights to coastal and reef areas. This allowed unregulated development of tourism infrastructure, often ignoring long-term ecological impacts.
Similar issues are seen in Morocco, where lax regulations allow foreign investors to exploit coastal land for hotel development, often providing little benefit to local communities.
Yet, there are success stories. In Santa Cruz, California, the initiative Save Our Shores mobilises citizens and tourists to protect beaches through anti-pollution campaigns and regular cleanups.
Surf tourism has brought significant economic benefits to many coastal regions. However, it has also introduced social and environmental challenges, including localism, overcrowding and ecological strain. Managing these issues requires a collaborative approach, with governments, local stakeholders and tourists working together to preserve the sport’s connection to nature.
This article was published as part of the 2024 Fête de la Science, of which The Conversation France was a partner. The year’s theme, “Oceans of Knowledge,” explored the wonders of the marine world.
Jérémy Lemarié is a member of the Fulbright network, as the recipient of the “Chercheuses et Chercheurs” grant from the Franco-American Commission in 2022-2023.
Source: The Conversation – France – By Jérémy Lemarié, Maître de conférences à l’Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA)
Invented in Hawaii, surfing gained popularity in the United States and Australia in the 1950s before becoming a global phenomenon. Now practiced in more than 150 countries, its spread has been driven by media and tourism. Surf tourism involves travelling to destinations to catch waves, either with a surfboard or through activities such as body surfing or bodyboarding. Tourists range from seasoned surfers to beginners eager to learn.
The allure of California
For many, surf tourism evokes exotic imagery shaped by California production companies. Columbia Pictures in 1959 and Paramount Pictures in 1961 introduced surfing to the middle class, showcasing the sport as a gateway to summer adventure and escape. However, it was the 1966 movie The Endless Summer, directed and produced by Bruce Brown, that became a box office success. The film follows two Californians travelling the globe in search of the perfect wave, which they ultimately find in South Africa. Beneath the seemingly lighthearted portrayal of a “surf safari”, it carries undertones of colonial ambition.
In the film, the Californians tell people in Africa that waves are untapped resources ready to be named and conquered. This sense of Western cultural dominance over populations in poorer countries has permeated surf tourism. Since the 1970s, French surfers have flocked to Morocco for its long-breaking waves, Australians have flocked to Indonesia and Californians to Mexico. The expansion of surfing to Africa, Asia and Latin America was enabled by easier international travel and economic disparities between visitors and hosts.
Surfing’s impact on local communities
Indonesia, for instance, became a surfing hotspot after Australian surfers started to explore the waves of Bali and the Mentawai Islands in the 1970s. Once remote regions with modest living standards, these areas saw tourism infrastructure mushroom to meet demand. Today, destinations such as Uluwatu in Bali and Padang Padang in Sumatra attract surfers of all skill levels.
Similarly, Morocco has experienced a surge in surf tourism, with spots such as Taghazout drawing European visitors in search of affordable waves and sunshine. While this has boosted local economies, it has also raised concerns about environmental degradation and the strain of tourism on previously untouched areas.
The challenges of overtourism in coastal areas
Although surfing is often seen as an activity in harmony with nature, mass tourism has created tensions between local surfers and visitors. Overtourism refers to the negative impact of excessive tourist numbers on natural environments and local communities.
One response to overtourism is localism – where local surfers assert ownership of waves, sometimes discouraging or even intimidating outsiders. This has been particularly pronounced in economically dependent surf destinations. For example, in Hawaii during the 1970s and 1980s, local surfers protested against the influx of professional Australian surfers and international competitions. Today, localism persists globally, from Maroubra in Sydney to Boucau-Tarnos in France’s Nouvelle-Aquitaine region. These places are not systematically off-limits to beginners, but major conflicts can arise during peak tourist seasons.
Surf schools, while crucial for teaching newcomers, also exacerbate crowding. During high seasons, beaches such as Côte des Basques in Biarritz become overcrowded, straining relations between experienced surfers, instructors and novices. Beginners, often unaware of surf etiquette and safety rules, contribute to frustrations among seasoned surfers.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
The role of public authorities
In response to these challenges, public initiatives have emerged to promote sustainable surf tourism. For instance, the Costa Rican government has established marine protected areas and regulated tourism activities to preserve a part of the coastal environment. Local authorities have also begun capping the number of surf schools and making access to the practice more difficult.
In southwestern France, municipalities use public service delegations (DSP), temporary occupation authorisations (AOT) and other tools to regulate surf schools operating on public beaches. Environmental awareness programmes have been launched to educate tourists on responsible behaviour toward beaches and oceans.
Gaps in regulation
Despite these measures, many coastal regions face insufficient action to address the environmental and social challenges posed by surf tourism. In Fiji, a 2010 decree deregulated the surf tourism industry, eliminating traditional indigenous rights to coastal and reef areas. This allowed unregulated development of tourism infrastructure, often ignoring long-term ecological impacts.
Similar issues are seen in Morocco, where lax regulations allow foreign investors to exploit coastal land for hotel development, often providing little benefit to local communities.
Yet, there are success stories. In Santa Cruz, California, the initiative Save Our Shores mobilises citizens and tourists to protect beaches through anti-pollution campaigns and regular cleanups.
Surf tourism has brought significant economic benefits to many coastal regions. However, it has also introduced social and environmental challenges, including localism, overcrowding and ecological strain. Managing these issues requires a collaborative approach, with governments, local stakeholders and tourists working together to preserve the sport’s connection to nature.
This article was published as part of the 2024 Fête de la Science, of which The Conversation France was a partner. The year’s theme, “Oceans of Knowledge,” explored the wonders of the marine world.
Jérémy Lemarié is a member of the Fulbright network, as the recipient of the “Chercheuses et Chercheurs” grant from the Franco-American Commission in 2022-2023.
Source: The Conversation – France – By Jérémy Lemarié, Maître de conférences à l’Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA)
Invented in Hawaii, surfing gained popularity in the United States and Australia in the 1950s before becoming a global phenomenon. Now practiced in more than 150 countries, its spread has been driven by media and tourism. Surf tourism involves travelling to destinations to catch waves, either with a surfboard or through activities such as body surfing or bodyboarding. Tourists range from seasoned surfers to beginners eager to learn.
The allure of California
For many, surf tourism evokes exotic imagery shaped by California production companies. Columbia Pictures in 1959 and Paramount Pictures in 1961 introduced surfing to the middle class, showcasing the sport as a gateway to summer adventure and escape. However, it was the 1966 movie The Endless Summer, directed and produced by Bruce Brown, that became a box office success. The film follows two Californians travelling the globe in search of the perfect wave, which they ultimately find in South Africa. Beneath the seemingly lighthearted portrayal of a “surf safari”, it carries undertones of colonial ambition.
In the film, the Californians tell people in Africa that waves are untapped resources ready to be named and conquered. This sense of Western cultural dominance over populations in poorer countries has permeated surf tourism. Since the 1970s, French surfers have flocked to Morocco for its long-breaking waves, Australians have flocked to Indonesia and Californians to Mexico. The expansion of surfing to Africa, Asia and Latin America was enabled by easier international travel and economic disparities between visitors and hosts.
Surfing’s impact on local communities
Indonesia, for instance, became a surfing hotspot after Australian surfers started to explore the waves of Bali and the Mentawai Islands in the 1970s. Once remote regions with modest living standards, these areas saw tourism infrastructure mushroom to meet demand. Today, destinations such as Uluwatu in Bali and Padang Padang in Sumatra attract surfers of all skill levels.
Similarly, Morocco has experienced a surge in surf tourism, with spots such as Taghazout drawing European visitors in search of affordable waves and sunshine. While this has boosted local economies, it has also raised concerns about environmental degradation and the strain of tourism on previously untouched areas.
The challenges of overtourism in coastal areas
Although surfing is often seen as an activity in harmony with nature, mass tourism has created tensions between local surfers and visitors. Overtourism refers to the negative impact of excessive tourist numbers on natural environments and local communities.
One response to overtourism is localism – where local surfers assert ownership of waves, sometimes discouraging or even intimidating outsiders. This has been particularly pronounced in economically dependent surf destinations. For example, in Hawaii during the 1970s and 1980s, local surfers protested against the influx of professional Australian surfers and international competitions. Today, localism persists globally, from Maroubra in Sydney to Boucau-Tarnos in France’s Nouvelle-Aquitaine region. These places are not systematically off-limits to beginners, but major conflicts can arise during peak tourist seasons.
Surf schools, while crucial for teaching newcomers, also exacerbate crowding. During high seasons, beaches such as Côte des Basques in Biarritz become overcrowded, straining relations between experienced surfers, instructors and novices. Beginners, often unaware of surf etiquette and safety rules, contribute to frustrations among seasoned surfers.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
The role of public authorities
In response to these challenges, public initiatives have emerged to promote sustainable surf tourism. For instance, the Costa Rican government has established marine protected areas and regulated tourism activities to preserve a part of the coastal environment. Local authorities have also begun capping the number of surf schools and making access to the practice more difficult.
In southwestern France, municipalities use public service delegations (DSP), temporary occupation authorisations (AOT) and other tools to regulate surf schools operating on public beaches. Environmental awareness programmes have been launched to educate tourists on responsible behaviour toward beaches and oceans.
Gaps in regulation
Despite these measures, many coastal regions face insufficient action to address the environmental and social challenges posed by surf tourism. In Fiji, a 2010 decree deregulated the surf tourism industry, eliminating traditional indigenous rights to coastal and reef areas. This allowed unregulated development of tourism infrastructure, often ignoring long-term ecological impacts.
Similar issues are seen in Morocco, where lax regulations allow foreign investors to exploit coastal land for hotel development, often providing little benefit to local communities.
Yet, there are success stories. In Santa Cruz, California, the initiative Save Our Shores mobilises citizens and tourists to protect beaches through anti-pollution campaigns and regular cleanups.
Surf tourism has brought significant economic benefits to many coastal regions. However, it has also introduced social and environmental challenges, including localism, overcrowding and ecological strain. Managing these issues requires a collaborative approach, with governments, local stakeholders and tourists working together to preserve the sport’s connection to nature.
This article was published as part of the 2024 Fête de la Science, of which The Conversation France was a partner. The year’s theme, “Oceans of Knowledge,” explored the wonders of the marine world.
Jérémy Lemarié is a member of the Fulbright network, as the recipient of the “Chercheuses et Chercheurs” grant from the Franco-American Commission in 2022-2023.
Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Robert Bird, Professor of Business Law & Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics, University of Connecticut
Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.
The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.
When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.
Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust
Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.
A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.
When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.
For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.
When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.
Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.
If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.
Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.
For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.
Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.
American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.
The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.
Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.
Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.
Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.
Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.
Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.
Robert Bird does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Debt pause clauses allow for the postponement of debt servicing during climate, health, or other crises, freeing up resources for response and recovery without compromising long-term economic and social sustainability.
The initiative, led by Spain and co-led by the EIB, is part of the agreements reached at the IV International Conference on Financing for Development, held in Seville.
The alliance remains an open and flexible coalition and brings together many countries and major multilateral banks
Spain, with the support of other countries and major multilateral development banks such as the European Investment Bank Group, unveiled the Debt Pause Clause Alliance at the IV International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville.
These clauses allow for the temporary suspension of debt payments in the face of extraordinary events — such as natural disasters, food crises, or health emergencies — offering borrowing countries immediate fiscal space to respond to the crisis without jeopardizing their solvency or their ability to meet social expenses. Their adoption promotes a more resilient and predictable development financing framework in times of crisis.
The alliance is an international coalition that seeks to accelerate the systematic inclusion of these clauses in public and private financial instruments. Additionally, it seeks to develop common principles and standard contractual language, thus generating transparent regulation that mobilizes the private sector.
The co-leaders of the initiative include the Inter-American Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, the African Development Bank, the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean, the Asian Development Bank, as well as the governments of Barbados, Canada, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom.
The EIB has made Debt Pause Clauses available for contracts on its new operations in 70 countries.
“As the financial arm of the European Union, the EIB is offering solutions to countries and communities to ensure the most vulnerable are not left behind. In the past year, the EIB has made climate resilient debt clauses available to 70 developing countries around the world. Today, we show our commitment to global partnerships for prosperity, win win outcomes and peace,” said Nadia Calviño, president of the European Investment Bank.
